From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <bp@suse.de>
Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3xH1672mSPzDqmj
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 00:37:02 +1000 (AEST)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:36:15 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 x86@kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
 linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
 Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
 Piotr Luc <piotr.luc@intel.com>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
 Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>, Reza Arbab <arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
 Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>,
 "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
 Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
 Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
 Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
 Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
 Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>,
 Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
 Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
 Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC Part1 PATCH v3 02/17] x86/CPU/AMD: Add the Secure Encrypted
 Virtualization CPU feature
Message-ID: <20170725143615.GA26029@nazgul.tnic>
References: <20170724190757.11278-1-brijesh.singh@amd.com>
 <20170724190757.11278-3-brijesh.singh@amd.com>
 <20170725102657.GD21822@nazgul.tnic>
 <7236d267-ebcb-8b45-b8d3-5955903e395f@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
In-Reply-To: <7236d267-ebcb-8b45-b8d3-5955903e395f@amd.com>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 09:29:40AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> Yup, we can do something like that.  I believe the only change that
> would be needed to your patch would be to move the IS_ENABLED() check
> to after the physical address space reduction check.

Yeah, I wasn't sure about that. The logic is that if BIOS has enabled
SME and thus reduction is in place, we need to update x86_phys_bits on
32-bit regardless, right?

But, come to think of it, that reduction won't have any effect since we
have 32-bit addresses and the reduction is above 32-bits, right? And
thus it is moot.

Or?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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