From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Borislav Petkov <bp-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC Part1 PATCH v3 07/17] x86/mm: Include SEV for encryption
 memory attribute changes
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:58:41 +0200
Message-ID: <20170727145841.GG28553@nazgul.tnic>
References: <20170724190757.11278-1-brijesh.singh@amd.com>
 <20170724190757.11278-8-brijesh.singh@amd.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, x86-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
        linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linuxppc-dev-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org,
        kvm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
        Piotr Luc <piotr.luc-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>,
        Reza Arbab <arbab-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
        Matt Fleming <matt-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>,
        Eric Biederma
To: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>
Return-path: <linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170724190757.11278-8-brijesh.singh-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>
Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 02:07:47PM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>
> 
> 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-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>
> Signed-off-by: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>
> ---
>  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 ...

Just a thought.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--