All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
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>,
	"Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
	"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>,
	"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
	"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>,
	"Ard Biesheuvel" <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 10/20] Add support to access boot related data in the clear
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 13:19:03 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161207131903.GU20785@codeblueprint.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161110003631.3280.73292.stgit@tlendack-t1.amdoffice.net>

On Wed, 09 Nov, at 06:36:31PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> Boot data (such as EFI related data) is not encrypted when the system is
> booted and needs to be accessed unencrypted.  Add support to apply the
> proper attributes to the EFI page tables and to the early_memremap and
> memremap APIs to identify the type of data being accessed so that the
> proper encryption attribute can be applied.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/e820.h    |    1 
>  arch/x86/kernel/e820.c         |   16 +++++++
>  arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c          |   89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.c |   12 ++++-
>  drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c     |   33 +++++++++++++++
>  include/linux/efi.h            |    2 +
>  kernel/memremap.c              |    8 +++-
>  mm/early_ioremap.c             |   18 +++++++-
>  8 files changed, 172 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
 
FWIW, I think this version is an improvement over all the previous
ones.

[...]

> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c b/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c
> index ff542cd..ee347c2 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,9 @@
>  #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
>  #include <asm/pgalloc.h>
>  #include <asm/pat.h>
> +#include <asm/e820.h>
> +#include <asm/setup.h>
> +#include <linux/efi.h>
>  
>  #include "physaddr.h"
>  
> @@ -418,6 +421,92 @@ void unxlate_dev_mem_ptr(phys_addr_t phys, void *addr)
>  	iounmap((void __iomem *)((unsigned long)addr & PAGE_MASK));
>  }
>  
> +static bool memremap_setup_data(resource_size_t phys_addr,
> +				unsigned long size)
> +{
> +	u64 paddr;
> +
> +	if (phys_addr == boot_params.hdr.setup_data)
> +		return true;
> +

Why is the setup_data linked list not traversed when checking for
matching addresses? Am I reading this incorrectly? I don't see how
this can work.

> +	paddr = boot_params.efi_info.efi_memmap_hi;
> +	paddr <<= 32;
> +	paddr |= boot_params.efi_info.efi_memmap;
> +	if (phys_addr == paddr)
> +		return true;
> +
> +	paddr = boot_params.efi_info.efi_systab_hi;
> +	paddr <<= 32;
> +	paddr |= boot_params.efi_info.efi_systab;
> +	if (phys_addr == paddr)
> +		return true;
> +
> +	if (efi_table_address_match(phys_addr))
> +		return true;
> +
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
> +static bool memremap_apply_encryption(resource_size_t phys_addr,
> +				      unsigned long size)
> +{
> +	/* SME is not active, just return true */
> +	if (!sme_me_mask)
> +		return true;
> +
> +	/* Check if the address is part of the setup data */
> +	if (memremap_setup_data(phys_addr, size))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	/* Check if the address is part of EFI boot/runtime data */
> +	switch (efi_mem_type(phys_addr)) {
> +	case EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_DATA:
> +	case EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_DATA:
> +		return false;
> +	}

EFI_LOADER_DATA is notable by its absence.

We use that memory type for allocations inside of the EFI boot stub
that are than used while the kernel is running. One use that comes to
mind is for initrd files, see handle_cmdline_files().

Oh I see you handle that in PATCH 9, never mind.

> diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.c b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.c
> index 58b0f80..3f89179 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.c
> @@ -221,7 +221,13 @@ int __init efi_setup_page_tables(unsigned long pa_memmap, unsigned num_pages)
>  	if (efi_enabled(EFI_OLD_MEMMAP))
>  		return 0;
>  
> -	efi_scratch.efi_pgt = (pgd_t *)__pa(efi_pgd);
> +	/*
> +	 * Since the PGD is encrypted, set the encryption mask so that when
> +	 * this value is loaded into cr3 the PGD will be decrypted during
> +	 * the pagetable walk.
> +	 */
> +	efi_scratch.efi_pgt = (pgd_t *)__sme_pa(efi_pgd);
> +
>  	pgd = efi_pgd;
>  
>  	/*

Do all callers of __pa() in arch/x86 need fixing up like this?

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Matt Fleming <matt-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>
Cc: linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	kvm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	"Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
	x86-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
	linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org,
	"Alexander Potapenko"
	<glider-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	"Larry Woodman"
	<lwoodman-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
	linux-arch-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet-T1hC0tSOHrs@public.gmane.org>,
	linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	kasan-dev-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
	"Andrey Ryabinin"
	<aryabinin-5HdwGun5lf+gSpxsJD1C4w@public.gmane.org>,
	"Rik van Riel" <riel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
	"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org>,
	"Borislav Petkov" <bp-Gina5bIWoIWzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>,
	"Andy Lutomirski" <luto-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org>,
	"Dmitry Vyukov" <dvyukov-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
	"Ard Biesheuvel"
	<ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
	linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org,
	"Paolo Bonzini"
	<pbonzini-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 10/20] Add support to access boot related data in the clear
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 13:19:03 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161207131903.GU20785@codeblueprint.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161110003631.3280.73292.stgit-qCXWGYdRb2BnqfbPTmsdiZQ+2ll4COg0XqFh9Ls21Oc@public.gmane.org>

On Wed, 09 Nov, at 06:36:31PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> Boot data (such as EFI related data) is not encrypted when the system is
> booted and needs to be accessed unencrypted.  Add support to apply the
> proper attributes to the EFI page tables and to the early_memremap and
> memremap APIs to identify the type of data being accessed so that the
> proper encryption attribute can be applied.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/e820.h    |    1 
>  arch/x86/kernel/e820.c         |   16 +++++++
>  arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c          |   89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.c |   12 ++++-
>  drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c     |   33 +++++++++++++++
>  include/linux/efi.h            |    2 +
>  kernel/memremap.c              |    8 +++-
>  mm/early_ioremap.c             |   18 +++++++-
>  8 files changed, 172 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
 
FWIW, I think this version is an improvement over all the previous
ones.

[...]

> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c b/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c
> index ff542cd..ee347c2 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,9 @@
>  #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
>  #include <asm/pgalloc.h>
>  #include <asm/pat.h>
> +#include <asm/e820.h>
> +#include <asm/setup.h>
> +#include <linux/efi.h>
>  
>  #include "physaddr.h"
>  
> @@ -418,6 +421,92 @@ void unxlate_dev_mem_ptr(phys_addr_t phys, void *addr)
>  	iounmap((void __iomem *)((unsigned long)addr & PAGE_MASK));
>  }
>  
> +static bool memremap_setup_data(resource_size_t phys_addr,
> +				unsigned long size)
> +{
> +	u64 paddr;
> +
> +	if (phys_addr == boot_params.hdr.setup_data)
> +		return true;
> +

Why is the setup_data linked list not traversed when checking for
matching addresses? Am I reading this incorrectly? I don't see how
this can work.

> +	paddr = boot_params.efi_info.efi_memmap_hi;
> +	paddr <<= 32;
> +	paddr |= boot_params.efi_info.efi_memmap;
> +	if (phys_addr == paddr)
> +		return true;
> +
> +	paddr = boot_params.efi_info.efi_systab_hi;
> +	paddr <<= 32;
> +	paddr |= boot_params.efi_info.efi_systab;
> +	if (phys_addr == paddr)
> +		return true;
> +
> +	if (efi_table_address_match(phys_addr))
> +		return true;
> +
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
> +static bool memremap_apply_encryption(resource_size_t phys_addr,
> +				      unsigned long size)
> +{
> +	/* SME is not active, just return true */
> +	if (!sme_me_mask)
> +		return true;
> +
> +	/* Check if the address is part of the setup data */
> +	if (memremap_setup_data(phys_addr, size))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	/* Check if the address is part of EFI boot/runtime data */
> +	switch (efi_mem_type(phys_addr)) {
> +	case EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_DATA:
> +	case EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_DATA:
> +		return false;
> +	}

EFI_LOADER_DATA is notable by its absence.

We use that memory type for allocations inside of the EFI boot stub
that are than used while the kernel is running. One use that comes to
mind is for initrd files, see handle_cmdline_files().

Oh I see you handle that in PATCH 9, never mind.

> diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.c b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.c
> index 58b0f80..3f89179 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.c
> @@ -221,7 +221,13 @@ int __init efi_setup_page_tables(unsigned long pa_memmap, unsigned num_pages)
>  	if (efi_enabled(EFI_OLD_MEMMAP))
>  		return 0;
>  
> -	efi_scratch.efi_pgt = (pgd_t *)__pa(efi_pgd);
> +	/*
> +	 * Since the PGD is encrypted, set the encryption mask so that when
> +	 * this value is loaded into cr3 the PGD will be decrypted during
> +	 * the pagetable walk.
> +	 */
> +	efi_scratch.efi_pgt = (pgd_t *)__sme_pa(efi_pgd);
> +
>  	pgd = efi_pgd;
>  
>  	/*

Do all callers of __pa() in arch/x86 need fixing up like this?

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
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>,
	"Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
	"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>,
	"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
	"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>,
	"Ard Biesheuvel" <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 10/20] Add support to access boot related data in the clear
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 13:19:03 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161207131903.GU20785@codeblueprint.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161110003631.3280.73292.stgit@tlendack-t1.amdoffice.net>

On Wed, 09 Nov, at 06:36:31PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> Boot data (such as EFI related data) is not encrypted when the system is
> booted and needs to be accessed unencrypted.  Add support to apply the
> proper attributes to the EFI page tables and to the early_memremap and
> memremap APIs to identify the type of data being accessed so that the
> proper encryption attribute can be applied.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/e820.h    |    1 
>  arch/x86/kernel/e820.c         |   16 +++++++
>  arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c          |   89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.c |   12 ++++-
>  drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c     |   33 +++++++++++++++
>  include/linux/efi.h            |    2 +
>  kernel/memremap.c              |    8 +++-
>  mm/early_ioremap.c             |   18 +++++++-
>  8 files changed, 172 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
 
FWIW, I think this version is an improvement over all the previous
ones.

[...]

> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c b/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c
> index ff542cd..ee347c2 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,9 @@
>  #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
>  #include <asm/pgalloc.h>
>  #include <asm/pat.h>
> +#include <asm/e820.h>
> +#include <asm/setup.h>
> +#include <linux/efi.h>
>  
>  #include "physaddr.h"
>  
> @@ -418,6 +421,92 @@ void unxlate_dev_mem_ptr(phys_addr_t phys, void *addr)
>  	iounmap((void __iomem *)((unsigned long)addr & PAGE_MASK));
>  }
>  
> +static bool memremap_setup_data(resource_size_t phys_addr,
> +				unsigned long size)
> +{
> +	u64 paddr;
> +
> +	if (phys_addr == boot_params.hdr.setup_data)
> +		return true;
> +

Why is the setup_data linked list not traversed when checking for
matching addresses? Am I reading this incorrectly? I don't see how
this can work.

> +	paddr = boot_params.efi_info.efi_memmap_hi;
> +	paddr <<= 32;
> +	paddr |= boot_params.efi_info.efi_memmap;
> +	if (phys_addr == paddr)
> +		return true;
> +
> +	paddr = boot_params.efi_info.efi_systab_hi;
> +	paddr <<= 32;
> +	paddr |= boot_params.efi_info.efi_systab;
> +	if (phys_addr == paddr)
> +		return true;
> +
> +	if (efi_table_address_match(phys_addr))
> +		return true;
> +
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
> +static bool memremap_apply_encryption(resource_size_t phys_addr,
> +				      unsigned long size)
> +{
> +	/* SME is not active, just return true */
> +	if (!sme_me_mask)
> +		return true;
> +
> +	/* Check if the address is part of the setup data */
> +	if (memremap_setup_data(phys_addr, size))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	/* Check if the address is part of EFI boot/runtime data */
> +	switch (efi_mem_type(phys_addr)) {
> +	case EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_DATA:
> +	case EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_DATA:
> +		return false;
> +	}

EFI_LOADER_DATA is notable by its absence.

We use that memory type for allocations inside of the EFI boot stub
that are than used while the kernel is running. One use that comes to
mind is for initrd files, see handle_cmdline_files().

Oh I see you handle that in PATCH 9, never mind.

> diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.c b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.c
> index 58b0f80..3f89179 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.c
> @@ -221,7 +221,13 @@ int __init efi_setup_page_tables(unsigned long pa_memmap, unsigned num_pages)
>  	if (efi_enabled(EFI_OLD_MEMMAP))
>  		return 0;
>  
> -	efi_scratch.efi_pgt = (pgd_t *)__pa(efi_pgd);
> +	/*
> +	 * Since the PGD is encrypted, set the encryption mask so that when
> +	 * this value is loaded into cr3 the PGD will be decrypted during
> +	 * the pagetable walk.
> +	 */
> +	efi_scratch.efi_pgt = (pgd_t *)__sme_pa(efi_pgd);
> +
>  	pgd = efi_pgd;
>  
>  	/*

Do all callers of __pa() in arch/x86 need fixing up like this?

--
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>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-12-07 13:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 244+ 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 ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:34 ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:34 ` 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  0:34   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:34   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:34   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10 10:51   ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-10 10:51     ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-14 17:15     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-14 17:15       ` Tom Lendacky
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  0:34   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:34   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:34   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10 13:14   ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-10 13:14     ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-11  1:26     ` Kani, Toshimitsu
2016-11-11  1:26       ` Kani, Toshimitsu
2016-11-11  1:26       ` Kani, Toshimitsu
2016-11-14 16:51       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-14 16:51         ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-14 16:51         ` Tom Lendacky
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
2016-11-10  0:34   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:34   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:34   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:34   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-11 11:53   ` Borislav Petkov
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
2016-11-10  0:35   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:35   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:35   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:35   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 12:10   ` Joerg Roedel
2016-11-15 12:10     ` Joerg Roedel
2016-11-15 12:10     ` Joerg Roedel
2016-11-15 12:14     ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-15 12:14       ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-15 14:40       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 14:40         ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 15:33         ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-15 15:33           ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-15 15:33           ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-15 16:06           ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 16:06             ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 16:06             ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 16:33             ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-15 16:33               ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-15 17:08               ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 17:08                 ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 17:08                 ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 21:22       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 21:22         ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 21:22         ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 21:33         ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-15 21:33           ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-15 21:33           ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-15 22:01           ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 22:01             ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 14:32     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 14:32       ` 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   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:35   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:35   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:35   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:35 ` [RFC PATCH v3 06/20] x86: Add support to enable SME during early boot processing Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:35   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:35   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:35   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:35   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-14 17:29   ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-14 17:29     ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-14 18:18     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-14 18:18       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-14 18:18       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-14 20:01       ` Borislav Petkov
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  0:35   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:35   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:35   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 08/20] x86: Add support for early encryption/decryption of memory Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:36   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:36   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:36   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-16 10:46   ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-16 10:46     ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-16 19:22     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-16 19:22       ` Tom Lendacky
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
2016-11-10  0:36   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:36   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:36   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-17 12:20   ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-17 12:20     ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-19 18:12     ` Tom Lendacky
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
2016-11-10  0:36   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:36   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:36   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:36   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-11 16:17   ` Kani, Toshimitsu
2016-11-11 16:17     ` Kani, Toshimitsu
2016-11-14 16:24     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-14 16:24       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-14 16:24       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-17 15:55   ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-17 15:55     ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-19 18:33     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-19 18:33       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-19 18:33       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-20 23:04       ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-20 23:04         ` Borislav Petkov
2016-12-07 13:19   ` Matt Fleming [this message]
2016-12-07 13:19     ` Matt Fleming
2016-12-07 13:19     ` Matt Fleming
2016-12-09 14:26     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-12-09 14:26       ` Tom Lendacky
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
2016-11-10  0:36   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:36   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:36   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:36   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-17 17:39   ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-17 17:39     ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-19 18:48     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-19 18:48       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-21  8:27       ` Borislav Petkov
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
2016-11-10  0:37   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:37   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:37   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:37   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-17 18:09   ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-17 18:09     ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-19 18:50     ` Tom Lendacky
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
2016-11-10  0:37   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:37   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:37   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 14:39   ` Radim Krčmář
2016-11-15 14:39     ` Radim Krčmář
2016-11-15 14:39     ` Radim Krčmář
2016-11-15 17:02     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 17:02       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 17:02       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 17:02       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 18:17       ` Radim Krčmář
2016-11-15 18:17         ` Radim Krčmář
2016-11-15 18:17         ` Radim Krčmář
2016-11-15 18:17         ` Radim Krčmář
2016-11-15 20:33         ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 20:33           ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 20:33           ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 20:33           ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 15:16   ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-11-15 15:16     ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-11-15 15:16     ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-11-15 18:29     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 18:29       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 18:29       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-15 19:16       ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-11-15 19:16         ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-11-15 19:16         ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-11-22 11:38       ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-22 11:38         ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-22 11:38         ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-22 15:22         ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-11-22 15:22           ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-11-22 15:22           ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-11-22 15:41           ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-22 15:41             ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-22 20:41             ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-11-22 20:41               ` Michael S. Tsirkin
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
2016-11-10  0:37   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:37   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:37   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:37   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-14 16:32   ` Joerg Roedel
2016-11-14 16:32     ` Joerg Roedel
2016-11-14 16:32     ` Joerg Roedel
2016-11-14 16:48     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-14 16:48       ` Tom Lendacky
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
2016-11-10  0:37   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:37   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:37   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-22 19:25   ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-22 19:25     ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-29 18:00     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-29 18:00       ` Tom Lendacky
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  0:37   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:37   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:37   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:37   ` 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   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:38   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:38   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:38   ` 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   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:38   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:38   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:38   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:38 ` [RFC PATCH v3 19/20] x86: Add support to make use of Secure Memory Encryption Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:38   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:38   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:38   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-24 12:50   ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-24 12:50     ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-24 12:50     ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-29 18:40     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-29 18:40       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:38 ` [RFC PATCH v3 20/20] " Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:38   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:38   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-10  0:38   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-22 18:58   ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-22 18:58     ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-22 18:58     ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-26 20:47   ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-26 20:47     ` Borislav Petkov
2016-11-29 18:48     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-29 18:48       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-11-29 19:56       ` Borislav Petkov
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=20161207131903.GU20785@codeblueprint.co.uk \
    --to=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --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=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=rkrcmar@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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.