From: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Definition of PMD_FLAGS_DEC_WP in arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt_identity.c
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2020 11:37:15 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201108163715.GA206902@rani.riverdale.lan> (raw)
Hi, I have a question about this definition in
arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt_identity.c:
#define PMD_FLAGS_LARGE (__PAGE_KERNEL_LARGE_EXEC & ~_PAGE_GLOBAL)
#define PMD_FLAGS_DEC PMD_FLAGS_LARGE
#define PMD_FLAGS_DEC_WP ((PMD_FLAGS_DEC & ~_PAGE_CACHE_MASK) | \
(_PAGE_PAT | _PAGE_PWT))
_PAGE_CACHE_MASK and _PAGE_PAT are for 4k pages, not 2M pages. The
definition of PMD_FLAGS_DEC_WP clears the PSE bit by masking out
_PAGE_CACHE_MASK, and sets it again by setting _PAGE_PAT, resulting in
PMD_FLAGS_DEC_WP actually being write-through, not write-protected,
using PAT index 1.
Shouldn't the definition be
#define PMD_FLAGS_DEC_WP (PMD_FLAGS_DEC | _PAGE_PAT_LARGE | _PAGE_PWT)
for write-protected using PAT index 5?
I guess the difference doesn't actually matter for encrypt-in-place? But
mem_encrypt_boot.S takes pains to initialize PA5 to be write-protected,
and it looks like it won't actually be used.
Thanks.
next reply other threads:[~2020-11-08 16:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-08 16:37 Arvind Sankar [this message]
2020-11-09 14:28 ` Tom Lendacky
2020-11-09 17:35 ` [PATCH] x86/mm/sme: Fix definition of PMD_FLAGS_DEC_WP Arvind Sankar
2020-11-09 20:41 ` Tom Lendacky
2020-11-09 21:42 ` Arvind Sankar
2020-11-10 23:31 ` Tom Lendacky
2020-11-11 16:09 ` [PATCH 1/2] " Arvind Sankar
2020-11-11 16:09 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86/mm: Remove duplicate definition of _PAGE_PAT_LARGE Arvind Sankar
2021-01-05 21:28 ` Arvind Sankar
2021-01-05 22:17 ` Dave Hansen
2021-01-08 21:12 ` [tip: x86/cleanups] " tip-bot2 for Arvind Sankar
2020-12-10 11:44 ` [tip: x86/urgent] x86/mm/mem_encrypt: Fix definition of PMD_FLAGS_DEC_WP tip-bot2 for Arvind Sankar
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=20201108163715.GA206902@rani.riverdale.lan \
--to=nivedita@alum.mit.edu \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®