linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 03/12] x86/sev: Add an x86 version of prot_guest

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]

Message-ID: <YR4p9TqKTLdN1A96@infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 19 Aug 2021 10:52:53 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-graphics-maintainer@...are.com,
        amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/12] x86/sev: Add an x86 version of prot_guest_has()

On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:59:22AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> While the name suggests this is intended mainly for guests, it will
> also be used for host memory encryption checks in place of sme_active().

Which suggest that the name is not good to start with.  Maybe protected
hardware, system or platform might be a better choice?

> +static inline bool prot_guest_has(unsigned int attr)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT
> +	if (sme_me_mask)
> +		return amd_prot_guest_has(attr);
> +#endif
> +
> +	return false;
> +}

Shouldn't this be entirely out of line?

> +/* 0x800 - 0x8ff reserved for AMD */
> +#define PATTR_SME			0x800
> +#define PATTR_SEV			0x801
> +#define PATTR_SEV_ES			0x802

Why do we need reservations for a purely in-kernel namespace?

And why are you overoading a brand new generic API with weird details
of a specific implementation like this?