Re: [RFC Part1 PATCH v3 07/17] x86/mm: Include SEV for encryption memory attribute changes
From: Borislav Petkov <hidden>
Date: 2017-07-27 14:59:09
Also in:
kvm, linux-efi, lkml
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 02:07:47PM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> The current code checks only for sme_active() when determining whether to perform the encryption attribute change. Include sev_active() in this check so that memory attribute changes can occur under SME and SEV. Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> Signed-off-by: Brijesh Singh <redacted> --- arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c index dfb7d65..b726b23 100644 --- a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c@@ -1781,8 +1781,8 @@ static int __set_memory_enc_dec(unsigned long addr, int numpages, bool enc) unsigned long start; int ret; - /* Nothing to do if the SME is not active */ - if (!sme_active()) + /* Nothing to do if SME and SEV are not active */ + if (!sme_active() && !sev_active())
This is the second place which does
if (!SME && !SEV)
I wonder if, instead of sprinking those, we should have a
if (mem_enc_active())
or so which unifies all those memory encryption logic tests and makes
the code more straightforward for readers who don't have to pay
attention to SME vs SEV ...
Just a thought.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--