On 04/24/2017 08:53 AM, Tom Lendacky wrote: > On 4/21/2017 4:52 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: >> On 04/18/2017 02:17 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote: >>> @@ -55,7 +57,7 @@ static inline void copy_user_page(void *to, void >>> *from, unsigned long vaddr, >>> __phys_addr_symbol(__phys_reloc_hide((unsigned long)(x))) >>> >>> #ifndef __va >>> -#define __va(x) ((void *)((unsigned long)(x)+PAGE_OFFSET)) >>> +#define __va(x) ((void *)(__sme_clr(x) + PAGE_OFFSET)) >>> #endif >> >> It seems wrong to be modifying __va(). It currently takes a physical >> address, and this modifies it to take a physical address plus the SME >> bits. > > This actually modifies it to be sure the encryption bit is not part of > the physical address. If SME bits make it this far, we have a bug elsewhere. Right? Probably best not to paper over it.
