From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A9B7C433EF for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 13:21:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230402AbiDZNYT (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2022 09:24:19 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53440 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230226AbiDZNYR (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2022 09:24:17 -0400 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4601:e00::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF0E12AE3B; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 06:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5962EB81FD1; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 13:21:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EFFFDC385AA; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 13:21:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1650979266; bh=hw2OdPlDK9lTbP803YMLGXahK+IAG253KwqouXqDKQk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=mPJO7c2n3vKRvA7OW2hhQ7yai4/fgi7Cjw9hrsNJmo/upGtAJTW7IBO6nECxLczQp 2iUOFOgCp22fNi+7Bat2fCf8k1rNIbEfrNahaJb77pOhVHIFHjdCn7CJIpt9ILfGTH GJJz34GqG2znqCh43Um1JwstiUo/vcxsbpZ8XevTVINYUdEdUG9uag+fH/pirDzEJm Bv6BjVPoMwvIUGYO40dLy/QKRP+VdHejFfo3hQUbVaAdBSYWr2NJIAXkGu1OuH6zD6 TRl/3lhuvKMH9av4Eq8fIMgtNdKa9YnaKlSUcsheMTAU4vVbykC0zFzCRvhduKe86F BwwMq69zrK8Qw== Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 16:20:55 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Martin Fernandez Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, ardb@kernel.org, dvhart@infradead.org, andy@infradead.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rafael@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, daniel.gutson@eclypsium.com, hughsient@gmail.com, alex.bazhaniuk@eclypsium.com, alison.schofield@intel.com, keescook@chromium.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/8] mm/memblock: Tag memblocks with crypto capabilities Message-ID: References: <20220425171526.44925-1-martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com> <20220425171526.44925-2-martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 09:59:04AM -0300, Martin Fernandez wrote: > On 4/26/22, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 02:15:19PM -0300, Martin Fernandez wrote: > >> Add the capability to mark regions of the memory memory_type able of > >> hardware memory encryption. > >> > >> Also add the capability to query if all regions of a memory node are > >> able to do hardware memory encryption to call it when initializing the > >> nodes. Warn the user if a node has both encryptable and > >> non-encryptable regions. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Martin Fernandez > >> --- > >> include/linux/memblock.h | 5 ++++ > >> mm/memblock.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> 2 files changed, 67 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h > >> index 50ad19662a32..00c4f1a20335 100644 > >> --- a/include/linux/memblock.h > >> +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h > >> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ extern unsigned long long max_possible_pfn; > >> * via a driver, and never indicated in the firmware-provided memory map > >> as > >> * system RAM. This corresponds to IORESOURCE_SYSRAM_DRIVER_MANAGED in > >> the > >> * kernel resource tree. > >> + * @MEMBLOCK_CRYPTO_CAPABLE: capable of hardware encryption > >> */ > >> enum memblock_flags { > >> MEMBLOCK_NONE = 0x0, /* No special request */ > >> @@ -47,6 +48,7 @@ enum memblock_flags { > >> MEMBLOCK_MIRROR = 0x2, /* mirrored region */ > >> MEMBLOCK_NOMAP = 0x4, /* don't add to kernel direct mapping */ > >> MEMBLOCK_DRIVER_MANAGED = 0x8, /* always detected via a driver */ > >> + MEMBLOCK_CRYPTO_CAPABLE = 0x10, /* capable of hardware encryption */ > >> }; > >> > >> /** > >> @@ -120,6 +122,9 @@ int memblock_physmem_add(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t > >> size); > >> void memblock_trim_memory(phys_addr_t align); > >> bool memblock_overlaps_region(struct memblock_type *type, > >> phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > >> +bool memblock_node_is_crypto_capable(int nid); > >> +int memblock_mark_crypto_capable(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > >> +int memblock_clear_crypto_capable(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > >> int memblock_mark_hotplug(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > >> int memblock_clear_hotplug(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > >> int memblock_mark_mirror(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > >> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c > >> index e4f03a6e8e56..fe62f81572e6 100644 > >> --- a/mm/memblock.c > >> +++ b/mm/memblock.c > >> @@ -191,6 +191,40 @@ bool __init_memblock memblock_overlaps_region(struct > >> memblock_type *type, > >> return i < type->cnt; > >> } > >> > >> +/** > >> + * memblock_node_is_crypto_capable - get if whole node is capable > >> + * of encryption > >> + * @nid: number of node > >> + * > >> + * Iterate over all memory memblock_type and find if all regions under > >> + * node @nid are capable of hardware encryption. > >> + * > >> + * Return: > >> + * true if every region in memory memblock_type is capable of > > > > I'd s/in memory memblock_type/in @nid > > > > Good, thanks. > > >> + * encryption, false otherwise. > >> + */ > >> +bool __init_memblock memblock_node_is_crypto_capable(int nid) > >> +{ > >> + struct memblock_region *region; > >> + int crypto_capables = 0; > >> + int not_crypto_capables = 0; > >> + > >> + for_each_mem_region(region) { > >> + if (memblock_get_region_node(region) == nid) { > >> + if (region->flags & MEMBLOCK_CRYPTO_CAPABLE) > >> + crypto_capables++; > >> + else > >> + not_crypto_capables++; > >> + } > >> + } > >> + > >> + if (crypto_capables > 0 && not_crypto_capables > 0) > >> + pr_warn("Node %d has %d regions that are encryptable and %d regions > >> that aren't", > >> + nid, not_crypto_capables, crypto_capables); > >> + > >> + return not_crypto_capables == 0; > > > > This will return true for memoryless nodes as well. Do you mean to consider > > them as capable of encryption? > > > > Not really, I didn't think about that to be honest. I don't think it's > a good idea to consider them as capable, right? I think capable of encryption would mean crypto_capables && !not_crypto_capables -- Sincerely yours, Mike.