[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190712151129.GA30636@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 17:11:29 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>,
x86@...nel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Mike Anderson <andmike@...ux.ibm.com>,
Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] fs/core/vmcore: Move sev_active() reference to x86
arch code
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 04:51:53PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> Thank you very much! I will have another look, but it seems to me,
> without further measures taken, this would break protected virtualization
> support on s390. The effect of the che for s390 is that
> force_dma_unencrypted() will always return false instead calling into
> the platform code like it did before the patch, right?
>
> Should I send a Fixes: e67a5ed1f86f "dma-direct: Force unencrypted DMA
> under SME for certain DMA masks" (Tom Lendacky, 2019-07-10) patch that
> rectifies things for s390 or how do we want handle this?
Yes, please do. I hadn't noticed the s390 support had landed in
mainline already.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists