[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180723094517.7sxt62p3h75htppw@kshutemo-mobl1>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 12:45:17 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Kai Huang <kai.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
"Schofield, Alison" <alison.schofield@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 10/19] x86/mm: Implement page_keyid() using page_ext
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 04:38:02PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 07/17/2018 04:20 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > Store KeyID in bits 31:16 of extended page flags. These bits are unused.
>
> I'd love a two sentence remind of what page_ext is and why you chose to
> use it. Yes, you need this. No, not everybody that you want to review
> this patch set knows what it is or why you chose it.
Okay.
> > page_keyid() returns zero until page_ext is ready.
>
> Is there any implication of this? Or does it not matter because we
> don't run userspace until after page_ext initialization is done?
It matters in sense that we shouldn't reference page_ext before it's
initialized otherwise we will get garbage and crash.
> > page_ext initializer enables static branch to indicate that
>
> "enables a static branch"
>
> > page_keyid() can use page_ext. The same static branch will gate MKTME
> > readiness in general.
>
> Can you elaborate on this a bit? It would also be a nice place to hint
> to the folks working hard on the APIs to ensure she checks this.
Okay.
> > We don't yet set KeyID for the page. It will come in the following
> > patch that implements prep_encrypted_page(). All pages have KeyID-0 for
> > now.
>
> It also wouldn't hurt to mention why you don't use an X86_FEATURE_* for
> this rather than an explicit static branch. I'm sure the x86
> maintainers will be curious.
Sure.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists