Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with... | linuxppc-dev

[PATCH 00/11] Implement generic prot_guest_has() helper function · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
[PATCH 01/11] mm: Introduce a function to check for virtualization protection features · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm: Introduce a function to check for virtualization protection features · Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> · 2021-07-28
Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm: Introduce a function to check for virtualization protection features · Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> · 2021-07-28
Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm: Introduce a function to check for virtualization protection features · Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> · 2021-08-02
Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm: Introduce a function to check for virtualization protection features · "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> · 2021-08-11
Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm: Introduce a function to check for virtualization protection features · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-08-11
[PATCH 02/11] x86/sev: Add an x86 version of prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
Re: [PATCH 02/11] x86/sev: Add an x86 version of prot_guest_has() · Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> · 2021-07-28
Re: [PATCH 02/11] x86/sev: Add an x86 version of prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-29
Re: [PATCH 02/11] x86/sev: Add an x86 version of prot_guest_has() · Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> · 2021-08-02
[PATCH 03/11] powerpc/pseries/svm: Add a powerpc version of prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
[PATCH 04/11] x86/sme: Replace occurrences of sme_active() with prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
Re: [PATCH 04/11] x86/sme: Replace occurrences of sme_active() with prot_guest_has() · Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> · 2021-08-02
[PATCH 05/11] x86/sev: Replace occurrences of sev_active() with prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
Re: [PATCH 05/11] x86/sev: Replace occurrences of sev_active() with prot_guest_has() · Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> · 2021-08-02
[PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> · 2021-07-30
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-08-09
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · Christophe Leroy <hidden> · 2021-08-02
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-08-09
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> · 2021-08-10
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-08-10
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> · 2021-08-10
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · Kirill A. Shutemov <hidden> · 2021-08-11
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-08-11
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · Kirill A. Shutemov <hidden> · 2021-08-12
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-08-13
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-08-13
[PATCH 06/11] x86/sev: Replace occurrences of sev_es_active() with prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
Re: [PATCH 06/11] x86/sev: Replace occurrences of sev_es_active() with prot_guest_has() · Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> · 2021-08-02
Re: [PATCH 06/11] x86/sev: Replace occurrences of sev_es_active() with prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-08-09
Re: [PATCH 06/11] x86/sev: Replace occurrences of sev_es_active() with prot_guest_has() · "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> · 2021-08-09
[PATCH 08/11] mm: Remove the now unused mem_encrypt_active() function · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
Re: [PATCH 08/11] mm: Remove the now unused mem_encrypt_active() function · Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> · 2021-08-02
[PATCH 09/11] x86/sev: Remove the now unused mem_encrypt_active() function · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
Re: [PATCH 09/11] x86/sev: Remove the now unused mem_encrypt_active() function · Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> · 2021-08-02
[PATCH 10/11] powerpc/pseries/svm: Remove the now unused mem_encrypt_active() function · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
[PATCH 11/11] s390/mm: Remove the now unused mem_encrypt_active() function · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
Re: [PATCH 00/11] Implement generic prot_guest_has() helper function · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
Re: [PATCH 00/11] Implement generic prot_guest_has() helper function · Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com> · 2021-07-28
Re: [PATCH 00/11] Implement generic prot_guest_has() helper function · "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> · 2021-08-09
Re: [PATCH 00/11] Implement generic prot_guest_has() helper function · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-08-09

Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has()

From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Date: 2021-08-13 17:09:23
Also in: amd-gfx, dri-devel, kexec, kvm, linux-efi, linux-fsdevel, linux-iommu, linux-s390, lkml, platform-driver-x86

On 8/12/21 5:07 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:

On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:52:55AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:

quoted

On 8/11/21 7:19 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 02:48:54PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:

quoted

On 8/10/21 1:45 PM, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:

...

quoted

Looking at code agains, now I *think* the reason is accessing a global
variable from __startup_64() inside TDX version of prot_guest_has().

__startup_64() is special. If you access any global variable you need to
use fixup_pointer(). See comment before __startup_64().

I'm not sure how you get away with accessing sme_me_mask directly from
there. Any clues? Maybe just a luck and complier generates code just right
for your case, I donno.

Hmm... yeah, could be that the compiler is using rip-relative addressing
for it because it lives in the .data section?

I guess. It has to be fixed. It may break with complier upgrade or any
random change around the code.

I'll look at doing that separate from this series.

BTW, does it work with clang for you?

I haven't tried with clang, I'll check on that.

Thanks,
Tom

`h`	back out one level
`j`	next message in thread
`k`	previous message in thread
`l`	drill in
`Esc`	close help / fold thread tree
`?`	toggle this help