[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d5fb2565-110e-17d1-ea00-35cf4d196f1e@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 11:27:31 -0700
From: "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 26/32] x86/mm: Move force_dma_unencrypted() to common
code
On 5/17/21 11:16 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> What generic code needs access to SEV vs. TDX? force_dma_unencrypted() is called
> from generic code, but its implementation is x86 specific.
When the hardening the drivers for TDX usage, we will have requirement to check
for is_protected_guest() to add code specific to protected guests. Since this will
be outside arch/x86, we need common framework for it.
Few examples are,
* ACPI sleep driver uses WBINVD (when doing cache flushes). We want to skip it for
TDX.
* Forcing virtio to use dma API when running with untrusted host.
--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists