[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180713170857.GB17896@nazgul.tnic>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 19:08:57 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: lijiang <lijiang@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
hpa@...or.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com, joro@...tes.org,
thomas.lendacky@....com, dyoung@...hat.com,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
bhe@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5 V5] Add a function(ioremap_encrypted) for kdump when
AMD sme enabled
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 09:55:35PM +0800, lijiang wrote:
> About this issue, i want to use an example to describe it.
> /* drivers/iommu/amd_iommu_init.c */
> static u8 __iomem * __init iommu_map_mmio_space(u64 address, u64 end)
Those addresses come from the IVHD header which is an ACPI table. So the
dump kernel can find that out too.
> Obviously, the iommu mmio space is not encrypted, and the device
> mmio space is outside kdump kernel. We know that the old memory is
> encrypted, and the old memory is also outside kdump kernel. For the
> current case, e820__get_entry_type() and walk_iomem_res_desc() can't
> get the desired result, so we can't also decide whether encryption
> or not according to this result(rules). If we want to know whether
> encryption or not by deducing the address, we will need to read the
> content of memory and have a reference value for comparison, then
> what's a reference value? Sometimes we don't know that.
Again, if we don't know that how is the *caller* supposed to know
whether the memory is encrypted or not? Because
"we" == "caller"
in the kdump kernel.
And the more important question is, why are we dumping MMIO space of the
previous kernel *at* *all*? That doesn't make any sense to me.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists