[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YhTnF4Wpd8/9QjO/@zn.tnic>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 14:37:27 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
ak@...ux.intel.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com, david@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, jgross@...e.com, jmattson@...gle.com,
joro@...tes.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com, knsathya@...nel.org,
pbonzini@...hat.com, sdeep@...are.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
tony.luck@...el.com, vkuznets@...hat.com, wanpengli@...cent.com,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 02/32] x86/coco: Add API to handle encryption mask
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 02:03:12PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> I would rather make cc_mkenc()/cc_mkdec() to operate on u64 (or
> phys_addr_t?) while pgprot_encrypted()/pgprot_decrypted() cover pgprot_t.
> It also makes set_memory cleaner:
>
> cpa.mask_set = __pgprot(enc ? cc_mkenc(0) : cc_mkdec(0));
> cpa.mask_clr = __pgprot(enc ? cc_mkdec(0) : cc_mkenc(0));
>
> Opinions?
Right, do I see it correctly that the cc_mk{enc,dec}() things should
take a u64 as an argument and return a pgprot_t, and that would be the
most optimal way for all the use cases?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists