On 7/28/2017 3:47 AM, David Laight wrote:
From: Borislav Petkov
Sent: 27 July 2017 15:59
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 02:07:47PM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx>
The current code checks only for sme_active() when determining whether
to perform the encryption attribute change. Include sev_active() in this
check so that memory attribute changes can occur under SME and SEV.
Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@xxxxxxx>
---
arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
index dfb7d65..b726b23 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
@@ -1781,8 +1781,8 @@ static int __set_memory_enc_dec(unsigned long addr, int numpages, bool enc)
unsigned long start;
int ret;
- /* Nothing to do if the SME is not active */
- if (!sme_active())
+ /* Nothing to do if SME and SEV are not active */
+ if (!sme_active() && !sev_active())
This is the second place which does
if (!SME && !SEV)
I wonder if, instead of sprinking those, we should have a
if (mem_enc_active())
or so which unifies all those memory encryption logic tests and makes
the code more straightforward for readers who don't have to pay
attention to SME vs SEV ...
If any of the code paths are 'hot' it would make sense to be checking
a single memory location.
The function would check a single variable/memory location and making it
an inline function would accomplish that.
Thanks,
Tom
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
