On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 04:43:42PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 06:50:41AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > That would prevent adding __decrypted to existing declarations, e.g. > > hv_clock_boot, which would be ugly in its own right. A more generic > > solution would be to add something like __decrypted_exclusive to mark > > I still don't understand why can't there be only a single __decrypted > section and to free that whole section on !SEV. Wouldn't that result in @hv_clock_boot being incorrectly freed in the !SEV case?
