On 09/12/2016 06:45 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:38:20PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> Add support to the AMD IOMMU driver to set the memory encryption mask if
>> memory encryption is enabled.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h | 2 ++
>> arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c | 5 +++++
>> drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c | 10 ++++++++++
>> 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
>> index 384fdfb..e395729 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
>> @@ -36,6 +36,8 @@ void __init sme_early_init(void);
>> /* Architecture __weak replacement functions */
>> void __init mem_encrypt_init(void);
>>
>> +unsigned long amd_iommu_get_me_mask(void);
>> +
>> unsigned long swiotlb_get_me_mask(void);
>> void swiotlb_set_mem_dec(void *vaddr, unsigned long size);
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c b/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c
>> index 6b2e8bf..2f28d87 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c
>> @@ -185,6 +185,11 @@ void __init mem_encrypt_init(void)
>> swiotlb_clear_encryption();
>> }
>>
>> +unsigned long amd_iommu_get_me_mask(void)
>> +{
>> + return sme_me_mask;
>> +}
>> +
>> unsigned long swiotlb_get_me_mask(void)
>> {
>> return sme_me_mask;
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c
>> index 96de97a..63995e3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c
>> @@ -166,6 +166,15 @@ struct dma_ops_domain {
>> static struct iova_domain reserved_iova_ranges;
>> static struct lock_class_key reserved_rbtree_key;
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Support for memory encryption. If memory encryption is supported, then an
>> + * override to this function will be provided.
>> + */
>> +unsigned long __weak amd_iommu_get_me_mask(void)
>> +{
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> So instead of adding a function each time which returns sme_me_mask
> for each user it has, why don't you add a single function which
> returns sme_me_mask in mem_encrypt.c and add an inline in the header
> mem_encrypt.h which returns 0 for the !CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT case.
Currently, mem_encrypt.h only lives in the arch/x86 directory so it
wouldn't be able to be included here without breaking other archs.
>
> This all is still funny because we access sme_me_mask directly for the
> different KERNEL_* masks but then you're adding an accessor function.
Because this lives outside of the arch/x86 I need to use the weak
function.
>
> So what you should do instead, IMHO, is either hide sme_me_mask
> altogether and use the accessor functions only (not sure if that would
> work in all cases) or expose sme_me_mask unconditionally and have it be
> 0 if CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT is not enabled so that it just works.
>
> Or is there a third, more graceful variant?
Is there a better way to do this given the support is only in x86?
Thanks,
Tom
>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>