lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC Part1 PATCH v3 07/17] x86/mm: Include SEV for encryption memory attribute changes
From
Date
On 7/27/2017 9:58 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 02:07:47PM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>> From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
>>
>> The current code checks only for sme_active() when determining whether
>> to perform the encryption attribute change. Include sev_active() in this
>> check so that memory attribute changes can occur under SME and SEV.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
>> index dfb7d65..b726b23 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
>> @@ -1781,8 +1781,8 @@ static int __set_memory_enc_dec(unsigned long addr, int numpages, bool enc)
>> unsigned long start;
>> int ret;
>>
>> - /* Nothing to do if the SME is not active */
>> - if (!sme_active())
>> + /* Nothing to do if SME and SEV are not active */
>> + if (!sme_active() && !sev_active())
>
> This is the second place which does
>
> if (!SME && !SEV)
>
> I wonder if, instead of sprinking those, we should have a
>
> if (mem_enc_active())
>
> or so which unifies all those memory encryption logic tests and makes
> the code more straightforward for readers who don't have to pay
> attention to SME vs SEV ...

Yup, that will make things look cleaner and easier to understand.

Thanks,
Tom

>
> Just a thought.
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-17 20:12    [W:0.105 / U:1.084 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site