From: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Mike Anderson <andmike@linux.ibm.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] fs/core/vmcore: Move sev_active() reference to x86 arch code
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 17:42:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190712174249.33b74535.pasic@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190712151129.GA30636@lst.de>
On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 17:11:29 +0200
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 04:51:53PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > Thank you very much! I will have another look, but it seems to me,
> > without further measures taken, this would break protected virtualization
> > support on s390. The effect of the che for s390 is that
> > force_dma_unencrypted() will always return false instead calling into
> > the platform code like it did before the patch, right?
> >
> > Should I send a Fixes: e67a5ed1f86f "dma-direct: Force unencrypted DMA
> > under SME for certain DMA masks" (Tom Lendacky, 2019-07-10) patch that
> > rectifies things for s390 or how do we want handle this?
>
> Yes, please do. I hadn't noticed the s390 support had landed in
> mainline already.
>
Will do! I guess I should do the patch against the for-next branch of the
dma-mapping tree. But that branch does not have the s390 support patches (yet?).
To fix it I need both e67a5ed1f86f and 64e1f0c531d1 "s390/mm: force
swiotlb for protected virtualization" (Halil Pasic, 2018-09-13). Or
should I wait for e67a5ed1f86f landing in mainline?
Regards,
Halil
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com>,
x86@kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
Mike Anderson <andmike@linux.ibm.com>,
Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] fs/core/vmcore: Move sev_active() reference to x86 arch code
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 17:42:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190712174249.33b74535.pasic@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190712151129.GA30636@lst.de>
On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 17:11:29 +0200
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 04:51:53PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > Thank you very much! I will have another look, but it seems to me,
> > without further measures taken, this would break protected virtualization
> > support on s390. The effect of the che for s390 is that
> > force_dma_unencrypted() will always return false instead calling into
> > the platform code like it did before the patch, right?
> >
> > Should I send a Fixes: e67a5ed1f86f "dma-direct: Force unencrypted DMA
> > under SME for certain DMA masks" (Tom Lendacky, 2019-07-10) patch that
> > rectifies things for s390 or how do we want handle this?
>
> Yes, please do. I hadn't noticed the s390 support had landed in
> mainline already.
>
Will do! I guess I should do the patch against the for-next branch of the
dma-mapping tree. But that branch does not have the s390 support patches (yet?).
To fix it I need both e67a5ed1f86f and 64e1f0c531d1 "s390/mm: force
swiotlb for protected virtualization" (Halil Pasic, 2018-09-13). Or
should I wait for e67a5ed1f86f landing in mainline?
Regards,
Halil
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Mike Anderson <andmike@linux.ibm.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] fs/core/vmcore: Move sev_active() reference to x86 arch code
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 17:42:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190712174249.33b74535.pasic@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190712151129.GA30636@lst.de>
On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 17:11:29 +0200
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 04:51:53PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > Thank you very much! I will have another look, but it seems to me,
> > without further measures taken, this would break protected virtualization
> > support on s390. The effect of the che for s390 is that
> > force_dma_unencrypted() will always return false instead calling into
> > the platform code like it did before the patch, right?
> >
> > Should I send a Fixes: e67a5ed1f86f "dma-direct: Force unencrypted DMA
> > under SME for certain DMA masks" (Tom Lendacky, 2019-07-10) patch that
> > rectifies things for s390 or how do we want handle this?
>
> Yes, please do. I hadn't noticed the s390 support had landed in
> mainline already.
>
Will do! I guess I should do the patch against the for-next branch of the
dma-mapping tree. But that branch does not have the s390 support patches (yet?).
To fix it I need both e67a5ed1f86f and 64e1f0c531d1 "s390/mm: force
swiotlb for protected virtualization" (Halil Pasic, 2018-09-13). Or
should I wait for e67a5ed1f86f landing in mainline?
Regards,
Halil
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-12 15:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 76+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-12 5:36 [PATCH 0/3] Remove x86-specific code from generic headers Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-12 5:36 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-12 5:36 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-12 5:36 ` [PATCH 1/3] x86/Kconfig: Move ARCH_HAS_MEM_ENCRYPT to arch/Kconfig Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-12 5:36 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-12 5:36 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-12 16:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-12 16:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-12 16:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-12 23:35 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-12 23:35 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-12 23:35 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-12 5:36 ` [PATCH 2/3] DMA mapping: Move SME handling to x86-specific files Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-12 5:36 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-12 5:36 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-12 7:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-12 7:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-12 7:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-12 23:42 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-12 23:42 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-12 23:42 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-12 23:42 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-12 16:09 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-12 16:09 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-12 16:09 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-18 19:47 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 19:47 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 19:47 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-19 9:05 ` kbuild test robot
2019-07-19 9:05 ` kbuild test robot
2019-07-19 9:05 ` kbuild test robot
2019-07-20 0:22 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-20 0:22 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-20 0:22 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-12 5:36 ` [PATCH 3/3] fs/core/vmcore: Move sev_active() reference to x86 arch code Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-12 5:36 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-12 5:36 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-12 13:09 ` Halil Pasic
2019-07-12 13:09 ` Halil Pasic
2019-07-12 13:09 ` Halil Pasic
2019-07-12 14:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-12 14:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-12 14:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-12 14:51 ` Halil Pasic
2019-07-12 14:51 ` Halil Pasic
2019-07-12 14:51 ` Halil Pasic
2019-07-12 15:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-12 15:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-12 15:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-12 15:42 ` Halil Pasic [this message]
2019-07-12 15:42 ` Halil Pasic
2019-07-12 15:42 ` Halil Pasic
2019-07-13 8:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-13 8:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-13 8:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-12 21:55 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-12 21:55 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-12 21:55 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-12 21:55 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-15 14:03 ` Halil Pasic
2019-07-15 14:03 ` Halil Pasic
2019-07-15 14:03 ` Halil Pasic
2019-07-15 14:03 ` Halil Pasic
2019-07-15 14:30 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-15 14:30 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-15 14:30 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-15 15:44 ` Lendacky, Thomas
2019-07-15 15:44 ` Lendacky, Thomas
2019-07-15 15:44 ` Lendacky, Thomas
2019-07-15 20:14 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-15 20:14 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-15 20:14 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-15 20:14 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-07-13 4:45 [PATCH 0/3] Remove x86-specific code from generic headers Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-13 4:45 ` [PATCH 3/3] fs/core/vmcore: Move sev_active() reference to x86 arch code Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-13 4:45 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-13 4:45 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190712174249.33b74535.pasic@linux.ibm.com \
--to=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=andmike@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.