Hi all,
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 14:26:40 +0000 "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 9/2/19 9:03 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> >
> > tl;dr: And IOMMU commit introduces a new user for sme_active() in
> > generic code, and commit
> >
> > 284e21fab2cf x86, s390/mm: Move sme_active() and sme_me_mask to x86-specific header
> >
> > breaks the build of drivers/iommu/ for all architectures not
> > implementing sme_active().
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 04:39:51PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> drivers/iommu/iommu.c: In function 'iommu_subsys_init':
> >> drivers/iommu/iommu.c:123:38: error: implicit declaration of function 'sme_active'; did you mean 'cpu_active'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >> 123 | if (iommu_default_passthrough() && sme_active()) {
>
> Maybe we should make this mem_encrypt_active(), since this will probably
> be needed if/when an IOMMU device is eventually added to a guest, and the
> referenced commit below doesn't remove that call.
I have done that for today:
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 15:19:34 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] iommu: use mem_encrypt_active() instead of sme_active()
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
index 66cfacaa483d..b870044ecd49 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ static int __init iommu_subsys_init(void)
else
iommu_set_default_translated(false);
- if (iommu_default_passthrough() && sme_active()) {
+ if (iommu_default_passthrough() && mem_encrypt_active()) {
pr_info("SME detected - Disabling default IOMMU Passthrough\n");
iommu_set_default_translated(false);
}
--
2.23.0.rc1
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Attachment:
pgpw21JcAfutj.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
