[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190724155530.hlingpcirjcf2ljg@box>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 18:55:30 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>
Cc: "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Lianbo Jiang <lijiang@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-direct: Force unencrypted DMA under SME for certain
DMA masks
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 07:01:19PM +0000, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> @@ -351,6 +355,32 @@ bool sev_active(void)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(sev_active);
>
> +/* Override for DMA direct allocation check - ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED */
> +bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + /*
> + * For SEV, all DMA must be to unencrypted addresses.
> + */
> + if (sev_active())
> + return true;
> +
> + /*
> + * For SME, all DMA must be to unencrypted addresses if the
> + * device does not support DMA to addresses that include the
> + * encryption mask.
> + */
> + if (sme_active()) {
> + u64 dma_enc_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(__ffs64(sme_me_mask));
> + u64 dma_dev_mask = min_not_zero(dev->coherent_dma_mask,
> + dev->bus_dma_mask);
> +
> + if (dma_dev_mask <= dma_enc_mask)
> + return true;
Hm. What is wrong with the dev mask being equal to enc mask? IIUC, it
means that device mask is wide enough to cover encryption bit, doesn't it?
> + }
> +
> + return false;
> +}
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists