From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752384AbdGYOhI (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:37:08 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:33526 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752254AbdGYOhD (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:37:03 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:36:15 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Tom Lendacky Cc: Brijesh Singh , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H . Peter Anvin" , Andy Lutomirski , Tony Luck , Piotr Luc , Fenghua Yu , Lu Baolu , Reza Arbab , David Howells , Matt Fleming , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Laura Abbott , Ard Biesheuvel , Andrew Morton , Eric Biederman , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Jonathan Corbet , Dave Airlie , Kees Cook , Paolo Bonzini , Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Arnd Bergmann , Tejun Heo , Christoph Lameter 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 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <7236d267-ebcb-8b45-b8d3-5955903e395f@amd.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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) -- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [RFC Part1 PATCH v3 02/17] x86/CPU/AMD: Add the Secure Encrypted Virtualization CPU feature Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:36:15 +0200 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7236d267-ebcb-8b45-b8d3-5955903e395f-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Tom Lendacky Cc: Brijesh Singh , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, x86-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linuxppc-dev-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, kvm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H . Peter Anvin" , Andy Lutomirski , Tony Luck , Piotr Luc , Fenghua Yu , Lu Baolu , Reza Arbab , David Howells , Matt Fleming , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Laura Abbott , Ard Biesheuvel , Andrew Morton , Eric List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org 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) -- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [RFC Part1 PATCH v3 02/17] x86/CPU/AMD: Add the Secure Encrypted Virtualization CPU feature Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:36:15 +0200 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Brijesh Singh , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, x86-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linuxppc-dev-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, kvm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H . Peter Anvin" , Andy Lutomirski , Tony Luck , Piotr Luc , Fenghua Yu , Lu Baolu , Reza Arbab , David Howells , Matt Fleming , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Laura Abbott , Ard Biesheuvel , Andrew Morton , Eric Biederman To: Tom Lendacky Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7236d267-ebcb-8b45-b8d3-5955903e395f-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org 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) --