[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXHKxObuebZJMWQQwg014rYzvoBgWPZxfCYakuf+GSoqhg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 11:30:38 +0100
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
"# 3.4.x" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/sme: Explicitly map new EFI memmap table as encrypted
On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 15:06, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com> wrote:
>
> On 10/27/21 12:04 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10/27/21 11:59 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 18:56, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 05:14:35PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>>> I could take it, but since it will ultimately go through -tip anyway,
> >>>> perhaps better if they just take it directly? (This will change after
> >>>> the next -rc1 though)
> >>>>
> >>>> Boris?
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, I'm being told this is not urgent enough to rush in now so you
> >>> could queue it into your fixes branch for 5.16 once -rc1 is out and send
> >>> it to Linus then. The stable tag is just so it gets backported to the
> >>> respective trees.
> >>>
> >>> But if you prefer I should take it, then I can queue it after -rc1.
> >>> It'll boil down to the same thing though.
> >>>
> >>
> >> No, in that case, I can take it myself.
> >>
> >> Tom, does that work for you?
> >
> > Yup, that works for me. Thanks guys!
>
> I don't see this in any tree yet, so just a gentle reminder in case it
> dropped off the radar.
>
Apologies for the delay, I've pushed this out to -next now.
Before I send it to Linus, can you please confirm (for my peace of
mind) how this only affects systems that have memory encryption
available and enabled in the first place?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists