From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932452AbdIFN54 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 6 Sep 2017 09:57:56 -0400
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:48881 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932299AbdIFN5w (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 6 Sep 2017 09:57:52 -0400
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 15:57:40 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
        X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: SME/32-bit regression
In-Reply-To: <86bcf09d-255d-3ad7-ecfe-497e3f57c4eb@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709061557180.1843@nanos>
References: <4c07148a-5d97-0fc2-aa9b-1db31429736d@oracle.com> <20170906092618.fkvzrqx32z6iqf2t@pd.tnic> <86bcf09d-255d-3ad7-ecfe-497e3f57c4eb@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 09/06/2017 05:26 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:45:07PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >> It appears there is a regression for 32-bit kernels due to SME changes.
> >>
> >> I bisected my particular problem
> > It being? Doesn't boot, splats?
> 
> Xen guest crashes very early, before a splat can can be generated.
> 
> >
> >> (Xen PV guest) to
> >> 21729f81ce8ae76a6995681d40e16f7ce8075db4 but I also saw pmd_clear_bad()
> >> errors on baremetal. This seems to be caused by sme_me_mask being an
> >> unsigned long as opposed to phys_addr_t (the actual problem is that
> >> __PHYSICAL_MASK is truncated). When I declare it as u64 and drop unsigned
> >> long cast in __sme_set()/__sme_clr() the problem goes way. (This presumably
> >> won't work for non-PAE which I haven't tried).
> > Right, so I think we should do this because those macros should not have
> > any effect on !CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT setups.
> 
> This won't help though if kernel is built with SME support.

Which is not the case for 32bit. SME depends on 64bit