linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/sme: Mark the code as __head in mem_encrypt

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: <ZS6DngTm9ILei4dM@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2023 14:52:46 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Hou Wenlong <houwenlong.hwl@...group.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE 32-BIT AND 64-BIT" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Steve Rutherford <srutherford@...gle.com>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/sme: Mark the code as __head in
 mem_encrypt_identity.c


* Hou Wenlong <houwenlong.hwl@...group.com> wrote:

> The functions sme_enable() and sme_encrypt_kernel() are only called by
> the head code which runs in identity virtual address. Therefore, it's
> better to mark them as __head as well.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hou Wenlong <houwenlong.hwl@...group.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h |  8 ++++----
>  arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt_identity.c | 27 ++++++++++++++-------------
>  2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
> index 359ada486fa9..48469e22a75e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
> @@ -46,8 +46,8 @@ void __init sme_unmap_bootdata(char *real_mode_data);
>  
>  void __init sme_early_init(void);
>  
> -void __init sme_encrypt_kernel(struct boot_params *bp);
> -void __init sme_enable(struct boot_params *bp);
> +void sme_encrypt_kernel(struct boot_params *bp);
> +void sme_enable(struct boot_params *bp);
>  
>  int __init early_set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long vaddr, unsigned long size);
>  int __init early_set_memory_encrypted(unsigned long vaddr, unsigned long size);
> @@ -75,8 +75,8 @@ static inline void __init sme_unmap_bootdata(char *real_mode_data) { }
>  
>  static inline void __init sme_early_init(void) { }
>  
> -static inline void __init sme_encrypt_kernel(struct boot_params *bp) { }
> -static inline void __init sme_enable(struct boot_params *bp) { }
> +static inline void sme_encrypt_kernel(struct boot_params *bp) { }
> +static inline void sme_enable(struct boot_params *bp) { }

So I think we should preserve the previous convention of marking functions 
__init in the header-declaration and at the definition site as well, and do 
the same with __head as well?

Thanks,

	Ingo