linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] DMA mapping: Move SME handling to x86-specific files

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 18 Jul 2019 16:47:09 -0300
From:   Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     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,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Mike Anderson <andmike@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] DMA mapping: Move SME handling to x86-specific files


Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:

> On Fri, 12 Jul 2019, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>> diff --git a/include/linux/mem_encrypt.h b/include/linux/mem_encrypt.h
>> index b310a9c18113..f2e399fb626b 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/mem_encrypt.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mem_encrypt.h
>> @@ -21,23 +21,11 @@
>>  
>>  #else	/* !CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_MEM_ENCRYPT */
>>  
>> -#define sme_me_mask	0ULL
>> -
>> -static inline bool sme_active(void) { return false; }
>>  static inline bool sev_active(void) { return false; }
>
> You want to move out sev_active as well, the only relevant thing is
> mem_encrypt_active(). Everything SME/SEV is an architecture detail.

I'm sure you saw it. I addressed sev_active in a separate patch.

Thanks for reviewing this series!

>> +static inline bool mem_encrypt_active(void) { return false; }
>
> Thanks,
>
> 	tglx


-- 
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center