On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 10:12:20AM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx>
>
> Provide support for Secure Encyrpted Virtualization (SEV). This initial
> support defines a flag that is used by the kernel to determine if it is
> running with SEV active.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h | 14 +++++++++++++-
> arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c | 3 +++
> include/linux/mem_encrypt.h | 6 ++++++
> 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
> index 1fd5426..9799835 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
> @@ -20,10 +20,16 @@
> #ifdef CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT
>
> extern unsigned long sme_me_mask;
> +extern unsigned int sev_enabled;
So there's a function name sev_enabled() and an int sev_enabled too.
It looks to me like you want to call the function "sev_enable()" -
similar to sme_enable(), convert it to C code - i.e., I don't see what
would speak against it - and rename that sev_enc_bit to sev_enabled and
use it everywhere when testing SEV status.
> static inline bool sme_active(void)
> {
> - return (sme_me_mask) ? true : false;
> + return (sme_me_mask && !sev_enabled) ? true : false;
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool sev_active(void)
> +{
> + return (sme_me_mask && sev_enabled) ? true : false;
Then, those read strange: like SME and SEV are mutually exclusive. Why?
I might have an idea but I'd like for you to confirm it :-)
Then, you're calling sev_enabled in startup_32() but we can enter
in arch/x86/boot/compressed/head_64.S::startup_64() too, when we're
loaded by a 64-bit bootloader, which would then theoretically bypass
sev_enabled().
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
