Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: SME/32-bit regression | From | Boris Ostrovsky <> | Date | Wed, 6 Sep 2017 10:03:27 -0400 |
| |
On 09/06/2017 09:57 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >> On 09/06/2017 05:26 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:45:07PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >>>> It appears there is a regression for 32-bit kernels due to SME changes. >>>> >>>> I bisected my particular problem >>> It being? Doesn't boot, splats? >> Xen guest crashes very early, before a splat can can be generated. >> >>>> (Xen PV guest) to >>>> 21729f81ce8ae76a6995681d40e16f7ce8075db4 but I also saw pmd_clear_bad() >>>> errors on baremetal. This seems to be caused by sme_me_mask being an >>>> unsigned long as opposed to phys_addr_t (the actual problem is that >>>> __PHYSICAL_MASK is truncated). When I declare it as u64 and drop unsigned >>>> long cast in __sme_set()/__sme_clr() the problem goes way. (This presumably >>>> won't work for non-PAE which I haven't tried). >>> Right, so I think we should do this because those macros should not have >>> any effect on !CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT setups. >> This won't help though if kernel is built with SME support. > Which is not the case for 32bit. SME depends on 64bit
Oh, OK, I didn't realize that.
-boris
| |