Re: [RFC PATCH v3 04/20] x86: Handle reduction in physical address size with SME

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11/15/2016 6:14 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 01:10:35PM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>> Maybe add a comment here why you can't use cpu_has (yet).
> 
> So that could be alleviated by moving this function *after*
> init_scattered_cpuid_features(). Then you can simply do *cpu_has().

Yes, I can move it after init_scattered_cpuid_features() and then use
the cpu_has() function.  I'll make sure to include a comment that the
function needs to be called after init_scattered_cpuid_features().

> 
> Also, I'm not sure why we're checking CPUID for the SME feature when we
> have sme_get_me_mask() et al which have been setup much earlier...
> 

The feature may be present and enabled even if it is not currently
active.  In other words, the SYS_CFG MSR bit could be set but we aren't
actually using encryption (sme_me_mask is 0).  As long as the SYS_CFG
MSR bit is set we need to take into account the physical reduction in
address space.

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>



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]