From: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)" <aneesh.kumar@kernel.org>,
linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 4/7] arm64: realm: Move Realm memory encryption ops to RSI code
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2026 11:12:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <baa99d81-7979-4654-a030-a550ba57bb58@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260805063255.1638614-5-aneesh.kumar@kernel.org>
On 05/08/2026 07:32, Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm) wrote:
> Realm memory encryption callbacks are CCA-specific. Keep the Realm callback
> registration with the RSI initialization code instead of pageattr.c, which
> only needs to provide the low-level page-attribute transition helper.
>
> Export __set_memory_enc_dec() within arm64 so the RSI code can wrap it with
> the Realm-specific encrypt/decrypt callbacks and warning policy.
>
> No functional changes in this patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm) <aneesh.kumar@kernel.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h | 3 +--
> arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c | 38 +---------------------------
> drivers/firmware/arm_rmm/rsi.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
> index f03b9d7b83b4..ef8b8463e52b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
> @@ -16,8 +16,7 @@ int arm64_mem_crypt_ops_register(const struct arm64_mem_crypt_ops *ops);
>
> int set_memory_encrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
> int set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
> -
> -int realm_register_memory_enc_ops(void);
> +int __set_memory_enc_dec(unsigned long addr, int numpages, bool encrypt);
>
> static inline bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev)
> {
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c b/arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c
> index bbe98ac9ad8c..14b2a3801f40 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c
> @@ -275,9 +275,7 @@ int set_direct_map_default_noflush(struct page *page)
> PAGE_SIZE, set_mask, clear_mask);
> }
>
> -static int __set_memory_enc_dec(unsigned long addr,
> - int numpages,
> - bool encrypt)
> +int __set_memory_enc_dec(unsigned long addr, int numpages, bool encrypt)
> {
> unsigned long set_prot = 0, clear_prot = 0;
> phys_addr_t start, end;
> @@ -321,40 +319,6 @@ static int __set_memory_enc_dec(unsigned long addr,
> __pgprot(PTE_PRESENT_INVALID));
> }
This calls "rsi_set_memory_range_protected/shared(). Should we add call
backs for those too in the arm64_mem_crypt_ops and take those away too ?
something like :
pre_enc_dec_phys_range(start, end, bool encrypt) ?
and implement that in firmware/arm_rmm/rsi.c ?
Suzuki
>
> -static int realm_set_memory_encrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages)
> -{
> - int ret = __set_memory_enc_dec(addr, numpages, true);
> -
> - /*
> - * If the request to change state fails, then the only sensible cause
> - * of action for the caller is to leak the memory
> - */
> - WARN(ret, "Failed to encrypt memory, %d pages will be leaked",
> - numpages);
> -
> - return ret;
> -}
> -
> -static int realm_set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages)
> -{
> - int ret = __set_memory_enc_dec(addr, numpages, false);
> -
> - WARN(ret, "Failed to decrypt memory, %d pages will be leaked",
> - numpages);
> -
> - return ret;
> -}
> -
> -static const struct arm64_mem_crypt_ops realm_crypt_ops = {
> - .encrypt = realm_set_memory_encrypted,
> - .decrypt = realm_set_memory_decrypted,
> -};
> -
> -int realm_register_memory_enc_ops(void)
> -{
> - return arm64_mem_crypt_ops_register(&realm_crypt_ops);
> -}
> -
> int set_direct_map_valid_noflush(struct page *page, unsigned nr, bool valid)
> {
> unsigned long addr = (unsigned long)page_address(page);
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_rmm/rsi.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_rmm/rsi.c
> index 8e716f1c1e31..ada139d0e344 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_rmm/rsi.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_rmm/rsi.c
> @@ -127,6 +127,40 @@ static int realm_ioremap_hook(phys_addr_t phys, size_t size, pgprot_t *prot)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int realm_set_memory_encrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages)
> +{
> + int ret = __set_memory_enc_dec(addr, numpages, true);
> +
> + /*
> + * If the request to change state fails, then the only sensible cause
> + * of action for the caller is to leak the memory
> + */
> + WARN(ret, "Failed to encrypt memory, %d pages will be leaked",
> + numpages);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int realm_set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages)
> +{
> + int ret = __set_memory_enc_dec(addr, numpages, false);
> +
> + WARN(ret, "Failed to decrypt memory, %d pages will be leaked",
> + numpages);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct arm64_mem_crypt_ops realm_crypt_ops = {
> + .encrypt = realm_set_memory_encrypted,
> + .decrypt = realm_set_memory_decrypted,
> +};
> +
> +static int realm_register_memory_enc_ops(void)
> +{
> + return arm64_mem_crypt_ops_register(&realm_crypt_ops);
> +}
> +
> void __init arm64_rsi_init(void)
> {
> if (arm_smccc_1_1_get_conduit() != SMCCC_CONDUIT_SMC)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-10 10:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-05 6:32 [PATCH v9 0/7] Switch Arm SMCCC firmware services to an SMCCC bus Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-08-05 6:32 ` [PATCH v9 1/7] firmware: smccc: Add an Arm " Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-08-05 6:32 ` [PATCH v9 2/7] firmware: hwrng: arm_smccc_trng: Register as an SMCCC device Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-08-05 11:08 ` Catalin Marinas
2026-08-05 6:32 ` [PATCH v9 3/7] firmware: arm_rmm: Move RSI support out of arch/arm64 Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-08-05 11:21 ` Catalin Marinas
2026-08-05 13:05 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2026-08-10 10:03 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2026-08-05 6:32 ` [PATCH v9 4/7] arm64: realm: Move Realm memory encryption ops to RSI code Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-08-10 10:12 ` Suzuki K Poulose [this message]
2026-08-10 12:15 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2026-08-05 6:32 ` [PATCH v9 5/7] virt: coco: arm-cca-guest: Rename TSM report source file Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-08-05 6:32 ` [PATCH v9 6/7] firmware: smccc: arm-cca-guest: Bind the TSM provider to an SMCCC device Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-08-05 6:32 ` [PATCH v9 7/7] coco: guest: arm64: Replace dummy CCA device with sysfs ABI Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)
2026-08-05 9:51 ` [PATCH v9 0/7] Switch Arm SMCCC firmware services to an SMCCC bus Catalin Marinas
2026-08-05 12:22 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2026-08-10 9:35 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2026-08-10 10:24 ` Will Deacon
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=baa99d81-7979-4654-a030-a550ba57bb58@arm.com \
--to=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=andre.przywara@arm.com \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
--cc=jic23@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-coco@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lpieralisi@kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=steven.price@arm.com \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=will@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox