linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 26/32] x86/mm: Move force_dma

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <5536639a-918d-de8d-ff32-934a13902a03@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 May 2021 14:54:19 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 26/32] x86/mm: Move force_dma_unencrypted() to common
 code

> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt_common.c
...
> +/* 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/shared 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_limit);
> +
> +		if (dma_dev_mask <= dma_enc_mask)
> +			return true;
> +	}
> +
> +	return false;
> +}

This doesn't seem much like common code to me.  It seems like 100% SEV
code.  Is this really where we want to move it?