[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190614121514.GK3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 14:15:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Kai Huang <kai.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC 00/62] Intel MKTME enabling
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 05:43:20PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> = Intro =
>
> The patchset brings enabling of Intel Multi-Key Total Memory Encryption.
> It consists of changes into multiple subsystems:
>
> * Core MM: infrastructure for allocation pages, dealing with encrypted VMAs
> and providing API setup encrypted mappings.
That wasn't eye-bleeding bad. With exception of the refcounting; that
looks like something that can easily go funny without people noticing.
> * arch/x86: feature enumeration, program keys into hardware, setup
> page table entries for encrypted pages and more.
That seemed incomplete (pageattr seems to be a giant hole).
> * Key management service: setup and management of encryption keys.
> * DMA/IOMMU: dealing with encrypted memory on IO side.
Just minor nits, someone else would have to look at this.
> * KVM: interaction with virtualization side.
You really want to limit the damage random modules can do. They have no
business writing to the mktme variables.
> * Documentation: description of APIs and usage examples.
Didn't bother with those; if the Changelogs are inadequate to make sense
of the patches documentation isn't the right place to fix things.
> The patchset is huge. This submission aims to give view to the full picture and
> get feedback on the overall design. The patchset will be split into more
> digestible pieces later.
>
> Please review. Any feedback is welcome.
I still can't tell if this is worth the complexity :-/
Yes, there's a lot of words, but it doesn't mean anything to me, that
is, nothing here makes me want to build my kernel with this 'feature'
enabled.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists