linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 02/19] x86/boot: Move mem_encrypt= parsing to the decompressor

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]

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 10:59:34 +0100
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Kevin Loughlin <kevinloughlin@...gle.com>, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>, 
	Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, 
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, 
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, 
	llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/19] x86/boot: Move mem_encrypt= parsing to the decompressor

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 10:30, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 10:12:13AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > The reason we need two flags is because there is no default value to
> > use when the command line param is absent.
>
> I think absent means memory encryption disabled like with every other
> option which is not present...
>
> > There is CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT_ACTIVE_BY_DEFAULT but that one is AMD
>
> ... yes, and I'm thinking that it is time we kill this. I don't think
> anything uses it. It was meant well at the time.
>
> Let's wait for Tom to wake up first, though, as he might have some
> objections...
>

OK, yeah, that would help.

AIUI this is for SME only anyway - SEV ignores this, and I suppose TDX
will do the same.