[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <de6ed405-11bf-6cc8-7f12-42b123c5bb25@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 18:58:14 +0000
From: "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Lianbo Jiang <lijiang@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Create an SME workarea in the kernel for early
encryption
On 6/13/19 1:06 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 6/13/19 10:59 AM, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
>>> After I say all that... Why can't you just stick your data in a normal,
>>> vanilla __init variable? Wouldn't that be a lot less subtle?
>> The area needs to be outside of the kernel proper as the kernel is
>> encrypted "in place." So an __init variable won't work here.
>
> Ahh, that makes sense. Also sounds like good changelog fodder.
>
> FWIW, you *could* use an __init area, but I think you'd have to work
> around it in sme_encrypt_kernel(), right? Basically in the
> kernel_start/end logic you'd need to skip over it. That's probably more
> fragile than what you have here, though.
Yes, I think having the workarea outside the kernel is best.
I'll send a V2 with the pre-patch and suggested changes.
Thanks,
Tom
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists