lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jun]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 25/34] swiotlb: Add warnings for use of bounce buffers with SME
From
Date
On 6/14/2017 11:50 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 02:17:32PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> Add warnings to let the user know when bounce buffers are being used for
>> DMA when SME is active. Since the bounce buffers are not in encrypted
>> memory, these notifications are to allow the user to determine some
>> appropriate action - if necessary.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h | 8 ++++++++
>> include/asm-generic/mem_encrypt.h | 5 +++++
>> include/linux/dma-mapping.h | 9 +++++++++
>> lib/swiotlb.c | 3 +++
>> 4 files changed, 25 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
>> index f1215a4..c7a2525 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
>> @@ -69,6 +69,14 @@ static inline bool sme_active(void)
>> return !!sme_me_mask;
>> }
>>
>> +static inline u64 sme_dma_mask(void)
>> +{
>> + if (!sme_me_mask)
>> + return 0ULL;
>> +
>> + return ((u64)sme_me_mask << 1) - 1;
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * The __sme_pa() and __sme_pa_nodebug() macros are meant for use when
>> * writing to or comparing values from the cr3 register. Having the
>> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/mem_encrypt.h b/include/asm-generic/mem_encrypt.h
>> index b55c3f9..fb02ff0 100644
>> --- a/include/asm-generic/mem_encrypt.h
>> +++ b/include/asm-generic/mem_encrypt.h
>> @@ -22,6 +22,11 @@ static inline bool sme_active(void)
>> return false;
>> }
>>
>> +static inline u64 sme_dma_mask(void)
>> +{
>> + return 0ULL;
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * The __sme_set() and __sme_clr() macros are useful for adding or removing
>> * the encryption mask from a value (e.g. when dealing with pagetable
>> diff --git a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
>> index 4f3eece..e2c5fda 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
>> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>> #include <linux/scatterlist.h>
>> #include <linux/kmemcheck.h>
>> #include <linux/bug.h>
>> +#include <linux/mem_encrypt.h>
>>
>> /**
>> * List of possible attributes associated with a DMA mapping. The semantics
>> @@ -577,6 +578,10 @@ static inline int dma_set_mask(struct device *dev, u64 mask)
>>
>> if (!dev->dma_mask || !dma_supported(dev, mask))
>> return -EIO;
>> +
>> + if (sme_active() && (mask < sme_dma_mask()))
>> + dev_warn(dev, "SME is active, device will require DMA bounce buffers\n");
>
> Something looks strange here:
>
> you're checking sme_active() before calling sme_dma_mask() and yet in
> it, you're checking !sme_me_mask again. What gives?
>

I guess I don't need the sme_active() check since the second part of the
if statement can only ever be true if SME is active (since mask is
unsigned).

Thanks,
Tom

> Why not move the sme_active() check into sme_dma_mask() and thus
> simplify callers?
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-06-14 21:50    [W:0.104 / U:1.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site