Re: [PATCH v5 06/32] x86/mm: Add Secure Memory Encryption (SME) support

[Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 04:17:27PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> Add support for Secure Memory Encryption (SME). This initial support
> provides a Kconfig entry to build the SME support into the kernel and
> defines the memory encryption mask that will be used in subsequent
> patches to mark pages as encrypted.

...

> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..d5c4a2b
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
> +/*
> + * AMD Memory Encryption Support
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) 2016 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
> + *
> + * Author: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
> + *
> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> + */
> +

These ifdeffery closing #endif markers look strange:

> +#ifndef __X86_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__
> +#define __X86_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__
> +
> +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT
> +
> +extern unsigned long sme_me_mask;
> +
> +static inline bool sme_active(void)
> +{
> +	return !!sme_me_mask;
> +}
> +
> +#else	/* !CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT */
> +
> +#ifndef sme_me_mask
> +#define sme_me_mask	0UL
> +
> +static inline bool sme_active(void)
> +{
> +	return false;
> +}
> +#endif

this endif is the sme_me_mask closing one and it has sme_active() in it.
Shouldn't it be:

#ifndef sme_me_mask
#define sme_me_mask  0UL
#endif

and have sme_active below it, in the !CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT branch?

The same thing is in include/linux/mem_encrypt.h

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.