On 4/27/2017 10:46 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 04:17:27PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
Add support for Secure Memory Encryption (SME). This initial support
provides a Kconfig entry to build the SME support into the kernel and
defines the memory encryption mask that will be used in subsequent
patches to mark pages as encrypted.
...
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d5c4a2b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+/*
+ * AMD Memory Encryption Support
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2016 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
+ *
+ * Author: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx>
+ *
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
+ * published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ */
+
These ifdeffery closing #endif markers look strange:
+#ifndef __X86_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__
+#define __X86_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__
+
+#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT
+
+extern unsigned long sme_me_mask;
+
+static inline bool sme_active(void)
+{
+ return !!sme_me_mask;
+}
+
+#else /* !CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT */
+
+#ifndef sme_me_mask
+#define sme_me_mask 0UL
+
+static inline bool sme_active(void)
+{
+ return false;
+}
+#endif
this endif is the sme_me_mask closing one and it has sme_active() in it.
Shouldn't it be:
#ifndef sme_me_mask
#define sme_me_mask 0UL
#endif
and have sme_active below it, in the !CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT branch?
The same thing is in include/linux/mem_encrypt.h
I did this so that an the include order wouldn't cause issues (including
asm/mem_encrypt.h followed by later by a linux/mem_encrypt.h include).
I can make this a bit clearer by having separate #defines for each
thing, e.g.:
#ifndef sme_me_mask
#define sme_me_mask 0UL
#endif
#ifndef sme_active
#define sme_active sme_active
static inline ...
#endif
Is that better/clearer?
Thanks,
Tom
