lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v4 07/28] x86: Provide general kernel support for memory encryption
From
Date
On 2/22/2017 12:13 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 02/16/2017 07:43 AM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> static inline unsigned long pte_pfn(pte_t pte)
>> {
>> - return (pte_val(pte) & PTE_PFN_MASK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> + return (pte_val(pte) & ~sme_me_mask & PTE_PFN_MASK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> }
>>
>> static inline unsigned long pmd_pfn(pmd_t pmd)
>> {
>> - return (pmd_val(pmd) & pmd_pfn_mask(pmd)) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> + return (pmd_val(pmd) & ~sme_me_mask & pmd_pfn_mask(pmd)) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> }
>
> Could you talk a bit about why you chose to do the "~sme_me_mask" bit in
> here instead of making it a part of PTE_PFN_MASK / pmd_pfn_mask(pmd)?

I think that's a good catch. Let me look at it, but I believe that it
should be possible to do and avoid what you're worried about below.

Thanks,
Tom

>
> It might not matter, but I'd be worried that this ends up breaking
> direct users of PTE_PFN_MASK / pmd_pfn_mask(pmd) since they now no
> longer mask the PFN out of a PTE.
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-02-24 00:18    [W:0.158 / U:0.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site