From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm3nam03on0082.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.41.82]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3xty6c2lw8zDrSt for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2017 00:13:10 +1000 (AEST) Cc: brijesh.singh@amd.com, "H. Peter Anvin" , Arnd Bergmann , David Laight , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "x86@kernel.org" , "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , Fenghua Yu , Matt Fleming , David Howells , Paul Mackerras , Christoph Lameter , Jonathan Corbet , =?UTF-8?Q?Radim_Krcm=c3=a1r?= , Piotr Luc , Ingo Molnar , Dave Airlie , Kees Cook , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Reza Arbab , Andy Lutomirski , Thomas Gleixner , Laura Abbott , Tony Luck , Ard.Biesheuvel@zytor.com Subject: Re: [RFC Part1 PATCH v3 13/17] x86/io: Unroll string I/O when SEV is active To: Borislav Petkov , Tom Lendacky References: <20170724190757.11278-1-brijesh.singh@amd.com> <20170724190757.11278-14-brijesh.singh@amd.com> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6DD003FB85@AcuExch.aculab.com> <201707261927.v6QJR228008075@mail.zytor.com> <589d65a4-eb09-bae9-e8b4-a2d78ca6b509@amd.com> <20170822165248.rkbluikdgduu7ucy@pd.tnic> <20170915122430.pnroy6vsg53warel@pd.tnic> From: Brijesh Singh Message-ID: <95314c89-2620-8bb7-cbe8-cd9bc3adabb0@amd.com> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 09:13:00 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170915122430.pnroy6vsg53warel@pd.tnic> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 09/15/2017 07:24 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 06:52:48PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> As always, the devil is in the detail. > > Ok, actually we can make this much simpler by using a static key. A > conceptual patch below - I only need to fix that crazy include hell I'm > stepping into with this. > > In any case, we were talking about having a static branch already so > this fits the whole strategy. > thanks for the suggestion Boris, it will make patch much simpler. I will try this out. -Brijesh