# Re: \[PATCH v3 5/8\] x86/sme: Replace occurrences of sme\_active() with cc\_platform\_has()

- From: Tom Lendacky \<thomas.lendacky@amd.com\>
- Date: 2021-09-24 13:31:58 
- List: linuxppc-dev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2021/09/214948
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2021/09/213849/t.md

```text
On 9/24/21 4:51 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 12:41:32PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 08:21:03PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 12:05:58AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>>> Unless we find other way to guarantee RIP-relative access, we must use
>>>> fixup_pointer() to access any global variables.
>>>
>>> Yah, I've asked compiler folks about any guarantees we have wrt
>>> rip-relative addresses but it doesn't look good. Worst case, we'd have
>>> to do the fixup_pointer() thing.
>>>
>>> In the meantime, Tom and I did some more poking at this and here's a
>>> diff ontop.
>>>
>>> The direction being that we'll stick both the AMD and Intel
>>> *cc_platform_has() call into cc_platform.c for which instrumentation
>>> will be disabled so no issues with that.
>>>
>>> And that will keep all that querying all together in a single file.
>>
>> And still do cc_platform_has() calls in __startup_64() codepath?
>>
>> It's broken.
>>
>> Intel detection in cc_platform_has() relies on boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor
>> which is not initialized until early_cpu_init() in setup_arch(). Given
>> that X86_VENDOR_INTEL is 0 it leads to false-positive.
>
> Yeah, Tom, I had the same question yesterday.
>
> /me looks in his direction.
>

Yup, all the things we talked about.

But we also know that cc_platform_has() gets called a few other times before boot_cpu_data is initialized - so more false-positives. For cc_platform_has() to work properly, given the desire to consolidate the calls, IMO, Intel will have to come up with some early setting that can be enabled and checked in place of boot_cpu_data or else you live with false-positives.

Thanks,
Tom

> :-)
>
```