From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91129C3A5A2 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 06:26:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E5A920863 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 06:26:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=shipmail.org header.i=@shipmail.org header.b="PMXmrPRZ" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730723AbfIJG0I (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Sep 2019 02:26:08 -0400 Received: from pio-pvt-msa3.bahnhof.se ([79.136.2.42]:44088 "EHLO pio-pvt-msa3.bahnhof.se" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726141AbfIJG0I (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Sep 2019 02:26:08 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pio-pvt-msa3.bahnhof.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06CFE3FCAD; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:26:00 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: pio-pvt-msa3.bahnhof.se; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=shipmail.org header.i=@shipmail.org header.b=PMXmrPRZ; dkim-atps=neutral X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at bahnhof.se Received: from pio-pvt-msa3.bahnhof.se ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (pio-pvt-msa3.bahnhof.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p1Q5uxKwuk5g; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:25:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail1.shipmail.org (h-205-35.A357.priv.bahnhof.se [155.4.205.35]) (Authenticated sender: mb878879) by pio-pvt-msa3.bahnhof.se (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0B7013FCA8; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:25:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (h-205-35.A357.priv.bahnhof.se [155.4.205.35]) by mail1.shipmail.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8BB9536007E; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:25:56 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=shipmail.org; s=mail; t=1568096756; bh=FIsOVU9sEdD7eTcpsHsOzRwFVOc3rhd5yiOdJ+Zt71Q=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=PMXmrPRZaYzzK46IhmFaiBLdKoWKRFHkazdUlhqdGIYJpfBSMgvl06AaCA2vndHYD zj7PDNJJfFZkbMcNnP7i9T8XLCgm0p06zFmVHCx5EWB1yrEO6de6HOAt2gMhpFu2qr xzZ7xq4NMS+j05XbMrowIlDg++h5DtKrsN/JIkw4= Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Fix SEV user-space mapping of unencrypted coherent memory To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, pv-drivers@vmware.com, Dave Hansen , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H. Peter Anvin" , =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=c3=b6nig?= , Marek Szyprowski , Tom Lendacky References: <20190905103541.4161-1-thomas_os@shipmail.org> <20190905112311.GA10199@infradead.org> <20190910061110.GA10968@infradead.org> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Thomas_Hellstr=c3=b6m_=28VMware=29?= Organization: VMware Inc. Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:25:56 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190910061110.GA10968@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 9/10/19 8:11 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 04:23:11AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> This looks fine from the DMA POV. I'll let the x86 guys comment on the >> rest. > Do we want to pick this series up for 5.4? Should I queue it up in > the dma-mapping tree? Hi, Christoph I think the DMA change is pretty uncontroversial. There are still some questions about the x86 change: After digging a bit deeper into the mm code I think Dave is correct about that we should include the sme_me_mask in _PAGE_CHG_MASK. I'll respin that patch and then I guess we need an ack from the x86 people. Thanks, Thomas