Since commit e67a5ed1f86f ("dma-direct: Force unencrypted DMA under SME
for certain DMA masks"), force_dma_unencrypted() is broken on s390
(under protvirt). Before used to return sev_active(), after it became
practically architecture specific, with the default implementation
always returning false.
Let's restore the old behavior of force_dma_unencrypted().
Note: we still need sev_active() defined because of the reference
in fs/core/vmcore, but this one is likely to go away soon along
with the need for an s390 sev_active().
Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fixes: e67a5ed1f86f ("dma-direct: Force unencrypted DMA under SME for
certain DMA masks")
--
Thiago has a path that gets rid of the fs/core/vmcore reference. Link:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1131571/
Prior discussion:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg3189113.html
---
arch/s390/Kconfig | 1 +
arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h | 2 +-
arch/s390/mm/init.c | 2 +-
3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/s390/Kconfig b/arch/s390/Kconfig
index 5d8570ed6cab..a4ad2733eedf 100644
--- a/arch/s390/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/s390/Kconfig
@@ -189,6 +189,7 @@ config S390
select VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING
select ARCH_HAS_SCALED_CPUTIME
select HAVE_NMI
+ select ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED
select SWIOTLB
select GENERIC_ALLOCATOR
diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
index 3eb018508190..f8453f8cc191 100644
--- a/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
+++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
#define sme_me_mask 0ULL
static inline bool sme_active(void) { return false; }
-extern bool sev_active(void);
+static inline bool sev_active(void) { return false; }
int set_memory_encrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
int set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/init.c b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
index f0bee6af3960..023ab4221687 100644
--- a/arch/s390/mm/init.c
+++ b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
@@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ int set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages)
}
/* are we a protected virtualization guest? */
-bool sev_active(void)
+bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev)
{
return is_prot_virt_guest();
}
--
2.17.1
