linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Larry Woodman <lwoodman@redhat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 13/20] x86: DMA support for memory encryption
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:39:44 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161115143943.GC2185@potion> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161110003723.3280.62636.stgit@tlendack-t1.amdoffice.net>

2016-11-09 18:37-0600, Tom Lendacky:
> Since DMA addresses will effectively look like 48-bit addresses when the
> memory encryption mask is set, SWIOTLB is needed if the DMA mask of the
> device performing the DMA does not support 48-bits. SWIOTLB will be
> initialized to create un-encrypted bounce buffers for use by these devices.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/pci-nommu.c b/arch/x86/kernel/pci-nommu.c
> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ static dma_addr_t nommu_map_page(struct device *dev, struct page *page,
>  				 enum dma_data_direction dir,
>  				 unsigned long attrs)
>  {
> -	dma_addr_t bus = page_to_phys(page) + offset;
> +	dma_addr_t bus = phys_to_dma(dev, page_to_phys(page)) + offset;
>  	WARN_ON(size == 0);
>  	if (!check_addr("map_single", dev, bus, size))
>  		return DMA_ERROR_CODE;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/pci-swiotlb.c b/arch/x86/kernel/pci-swiotlb.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@
>  int swiotlb __read_mostly;
>  
>  void *x86_swiotlb_alloc_coherent(struct device *hwdev, size_t size,
> @@ -64,13 +66,15 @@ static struct dma_map_ops swiotlb_dma_ops = {
>   * pci_swiotlb_detect_override - set swiotlb to 1 if necessary
>   *
>   * This returns non-zero if we are forced to use swiotlb (by the boot
> - * option).
> + * option). If memory encryption is enabled then swiotlb will be set
> + * to 1 so that bounce buffers are allocated and used for devices that
> + * do not support the addressing range required for the encryption mask.
>   */
>  int __init pci_swiotlb_detect_override(void)
>  {
>  	int use_swiotlb = swiotlb | swiotlb_force;
>  
> -	if (swiotlb_force)
> +	if (swiotlb_force || sme_me_mask)
>  		swiotlb = 1;
>  
>  	return use_swiotlb;

We want to return 1 even if only sme_me_mask is 1, because the return
value is used for detection.  The following would be less obscure, IMO:

	if (swiotlb_force || sme_me_mask)
		swiotlb = 1;

	return swiotlb;

> diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
> @@ -598,6 +602,15 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __init start_kernel(void)
>  	 */
>  	locking_selftest();
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * This needs to be called before any devices perform DMA
> +	 * operations that might use the swiotlb bounce buffers.
> +	 * This call will mark the bounce buffers as un-encrypted so
> +	 * that their usage will not cause "plain-text" data to be
> +	 * decrypted when accessed.
> +	 */
> +	mem_encrypt_init();

(Comments below are connected to the reason why we call this.)

> diff --git a/lib/swiotlb.c b/lib/swiotlb.c
> @@ -159,6 +171,31 @@ void swiotlb_print_info(void)
> +/*
> + * If memory encryption is active, the DMA address for an encrypted page may
> + * be beyond the range of the device. If bounce buffers are required be sure
> + * that they are not on an encrypted page. This should be called before the
> + * iotlb area is used.
> + */
> +void __init swiotlb_clear_encryption(void)
> +{
> +	void *vaddr;
> +	unsigned long bytes;
> +
> +	if (no_iotlb_memory || !io_tlb_start || late_alloc)

io_tlb_start seems redundant -- when can !no_iotlb_memory &&
!io_tlb_start happen?

Is the order of calls
  1) swiotlb init
  2) SME init
  3) swiotlb late init 
?

We setup encrypted swiotlb and then decrypt it, but sometimes set it up
decrypted (late_alloc) ... why isn't the swiotlb set up decrypted
directly?

> +		return;
> +
> +	vaddr = phys_to_virt(io_tlb_start);
> +	bytes = PAGE_ALIGN(io_tlb_nslabs << IO_TLB_SHIFT);
> +	swiotlb_set_mem_unenc(vaddr, bytes);
> +	memset(vaddr, 0, bytes);
> +
> +	vaddr = phys_to_virt(io_tlb_overflow_buffer);
> +	bytes = PAGE_ALIGN(io_tlb_overflow);
> +	swiotlb_set_mem_unenc(vaddr, bytes);
> +	memset(vaddr, 0, bytes);
> +}
> +
> @@ -541,7 +583,7 @@ static phys_addr_t
>  map_single(struct device *hwdev, phys_addr_t phys, size_t size,
>  	   enum dma_data_direction dir)
>  {
> -	dma_addr_t start_dma_addr = phys_to_dma(hwdev, io_tlb_start);
> +	dma_addr_t start_dma_addr = swiotlb_phys_to_dma(hwdev, io_tlb_start);

We have decrypted io_tlb_start before, so shouldn't its physical address
be saved without the sme bit?  (Which changes a lot ...)

Thanks.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2016-11-15 14:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 78+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-11-10  0:34 [RFC PATCH v3 00/20] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (AMD) Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:34 ` [RFC PATCH v3 01/20] x86: Documentation for AMD Secure Memory Encryption (SME) Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10 10:51   ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-14 17:15     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:34 ` [RFC PATCH v3 02/20] x86: Set the write-protect cache mode for full PAT support Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10 13:14   ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-11  1:26     ` Kani, Toshimitsu
2016-11-14 16:51       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:34 ` [RFC PATCH v3 03/20] x86: Add the Secure Memory Encryption cpu feature Tom Lendacky
2016-11-11 11:53   ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-10  0:35 ` [RFC PATCH v3 04/20] x86: Handle reduction in physical address size with SME Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 12:10   ` Joerg Roedel
2016-11-15 12:14     ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-15 14:40       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 15:33         ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-15 16:06           ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 16:33             ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-15 17:08               ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 21:22       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 21:33         ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-15 22:01           ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 14:32     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:35 ` [RFC PATCH v3 05/20] x86: Add Secure Memory Encryption (SME) support Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:35 ` [RFC PATCH v3 06/20] x86: Add support to enable SME during early boot processing Tom Lendacky
     [not found]   ` <20161110003543.3280.99623.stgit-qCXWGYdRb2BnqfbPTmsdiZQ+2ll4COg0XqFh9Ls21Oc@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-14 17:29     ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-14 18:18       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-14 20:01         ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-10  0:35 ` [RFC PATCH v3 07/20] x86: Provide general kernel support for memory encryption Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 08/20] x86: Add support for early encryption/decryption of memory Tom Lendacky
     [not found]   ` <20161110003610.3280.22043.stgit-qCXWGYdRb2BnqfbPTmsdiZQ+2ll4COg0XqFh9Ls21Oc@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-16 10:46     ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-16 19:22       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 09/20] x86: Insure that boot memory areas are mapped properly Tom Lendacky
     [not found]   ` <20161110003620.3280.20613.stgit-qCXWGYdRb2BnqfbPTmsdiZQ+2ll4COg0XqFh9Ls21Oc@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-17 12:20     ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-19 18:12       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 10/20] Add support to access boot related data in the clear Tom Lendacky
2016-11-11 16:17   ` Kani, Toshimitsu
2016-11-14 16:24     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-17 15:55   ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-19 18:33     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-20 23:04       ` Borislav Petkov
2016-12-07 13:19   ` Matt Fleming
2016-12-09 14:26     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 11/20] x86: Add support for changing memory encryption attribute Tom Lendacky
     [not found]   ` <20161110003655.3280.57333.stgit-qCXWGYdRb2BnqfbPTmsdiZQ+2ll4COg0XqFh9Ls21Oc@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-17 17:39     ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-19 18:48       ` Tom Lendacky
     [not found]         ` <6f1a16e4-5a84-20c0-4bd3-3be5ed933800-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-21  8:27           ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-10  0:37 ` [RFC PATCH v3 12/20] x86: Decrypt trampoline area if memory encryption is active Tom Lendacky
     [not found]   ` <20161110003708.3280.29934.stgit-qCXWGYdRb2BnqfbPTmsdiZQ+2ll4COg0XqFh9Ls21Oc@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-17 18:09     ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-19 18:50       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:37 ` [RFC PATCH v3 13/20] x86: DMA support for memory encryption Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 14:39   ` Radim Krčmář [this message]
2016-11-15 17:02     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 18:17       ` Radim Krčmář
2016-11-15 20:33         ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 15:16   ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-11-15 18:29     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 19:16       ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-11-22 11:38       ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-22 15:22         ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-11-22 15:41           ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-22 20:41             ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-11-10  0:37 ` [RFC PATCH v3 14/20] iommu/amd: Disable AMD IOMMU if memory encryption is active Tom Lendacky
2016-11-14 16:32   ` Joerg Roedel
2016-11-14 16:48     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:37 ` [RFC PATCH v3 15/20] x86: Check for memory encryption on the APs Tom Lendacky
2016-11-22 19:25   ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-29 18:00     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:37 ` [RFC PATCH v3 16/20] x86: Do not specify encrypted memory for video mappings Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:38 ` [RFC PATCH v3 17/20] x86/kvm: Enable Secure Memory Encryption of nested page tables Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:38 ` [RFC PATCH v3 18/20] x86: Access the setup data through debugfs un-encrypted Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:38 ` [RFC PATCH v3 19/20] x86: Add support to make use of Secure Memory Encryption Tom Lendacky
2016-11-24 12:50   ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-29 18:40     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:38 ` [RFC PATCH v3 20/20] " Tom Lendacky
2016-11-22 18:58   ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-26 20:47   ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-29 18:48     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-29 19:56       ` Borislav Petkov

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=20161115143943.GC2185@potion \
    --to=rkrcmar@redhat.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=aryabinin@virtuozzo.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=dvyukov@google.com \
    --cc=glider@google.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=lwoodman@redhat.com \
    --cc=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
    --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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).