From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Kai Huang <kai.huang@linux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Decouple dynamic __PHYSICAL_MASK from AMD SME
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 22:57:41 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <37cf20a3-653b-1ad7-1e65-6bed935cf325@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180214042121.tza3cpvrnpztjeme@node.shutemov.name>
On 2/13/2018 10:21 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:10:22PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> On 2/8/2018 6:55 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> AMD SME claims one bit from physical address to indicate whether the
>>> page is encrypted or not. To achieve that we clear out the bit from
>>> __PHYSICAL_MASK.
>>
>> I was actually working on a suggestion by Linus to use one of the software
>> page table bits to indicate encryption and translate that to the hardware
>> bit when writing the actual page table entry. With that, __PHYSICAL_MASK
>> would go back to its original definition.
>
> But you would need to mask it on reading of pfn from page table entry,
> right? I expect it to have more overhead than this one.
When reading back an entry it would translate the hardware bit position
back to the software bit position. The suggestion for changing it was
to make _PAGE_ENC a constant and not tied to the sme_me_mask.
See https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151017622615894&w=2
>
> And software bits are valuable. Do we still have a spare one for this?
I was looking at possibly using bit 57 (_PAGE_BIT_SOFTW5).
Thanks,
Tom
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-14 4:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-08 12:55 Kirill A. Shutemov
2018-02-14 4:10 ` Tom Lendacky
2018-02-14 4:21 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2018-02-14 4:57 ` Tom Lendacky [this message]
2018-02-14 7:30 ` Kai Huang
2018-02-14 9:02 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2018-02-14 15:09 ` Tom Lendacky
2018-02-14 15:51 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2018-02-14 14:30 ` Tom Lendacky
2018-04-10 9:33 Kirill A. Shutemov
2018-04-20 17:59 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
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=37cf20a3-653b-1ad7-1e65-6bed935cf325@amd.com \
--to=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kai.huang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--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®