From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]) by casper.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.87 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1dBoLX-0006Cf-WB for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 19 May 2017 20:18:02 +0000 Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:16:51 -0500 From: Josh Poimboeuf Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 32/32] x86/mm: Add support to make use of Secure Memory Encryption Message-ID: <20170519201651.dhayf2pwjlsnouz4@treble> References: <20170418211612.10190.82788.stgit@tlendack-t1.amdoffice.net> <20170418212223.10190.85121.stgit@tlendack-t1.amdoffice.net> <20170519113005.3f5kwzg4pgh7j6a5@pd.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170519113005.3f5kwzg4pgh7j6a5@pd.tnic> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Borislav Petkov Cc: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, Brijesh Singh , Toshimitsu Kani , Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Matt Fleming , x86@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Alexander Potapenko , "H. Peter Anvin" , Larry Woodman , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet , Joerg Roedel , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, Ingo Molnar , Andrey Ryabinin , Dave Young , Tom Lendacky , Rik van Riel , Arnd Bergmann , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Andy Lutomirski , Thomas Gleixner , Dmitry Vyukov , kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Paolo Bonzini On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 01:30:05PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > it is called so early. I can get past it by adding: > > > > CFLAGS_mem_encrypt.o := $(nostackp) > > > > in the arch/x86/mm/Makefile, but that obviously eliminates the support > > for the whole file. Would it be better to split out the sme_enable() > > and other boot routines into a separate file or just apply the > > $(nostackp) to the whole file? > > Josh might have a better idea here... CCed. I'm the stack validation guy, not the stack protection guy :-) But there is a way to disable compiler options on a per-function basis with the gcc __optimize__ function attribute. For example: __attribute__((__optimize__("no-stack-protector"))) -- Josh _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec