linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 11/34] x86/cpu/intel: Prepare MKTME for "address configuration" infrastructure

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: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 08:22:16 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
 x86@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 11/34] x86/cpu/intel: Prepare MKTME for "address
 configuration" infrastructure

On 2/23/24 03:33, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 10:39:41AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
>>
>> Intel also does memory encryption and also fiddles with the physical
>> address bits.  This is currently called for *each* CPU, but practically
>> only done on the boot CPU because of 'mktme_status'.
>>
>> Move it from the "each CPU" ->c_init() function to ->c_bsp_init() where
>> the whole thing only gets called once ever.  This also necessitates moving
>> detect_tme() and its entourage around in the file.
> The state machine around mktme_state doesn't make sense if we only call it
> on boot CPU, so detect_tme() can be drastically simplified. I can do it on
> top of the patchset.

That would be great.  Looking at it again, the (tme_activate !=
tme_activate_cpu0) block is total cruft now.  It probably just needs to
get moved to secondary CPU startup.