Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC Part1 PATCH v3 07/17] x86/mm: Include SEV for encryption memory attribute changes | From | Tom Lendacky <> | Date | Thu, 17 Aug 2017 13:10:45 -0500 |
| |
On 7/27/2017 9:58 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 02:07:47PM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote: >> From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> >> >> The current code checks only for sme_active() when determining whether >> to perform the encryption attribute change. Include sev_active() in this >> check so that memory attribute changes can occur under SME and SEV. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> >> Signed-off-by: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com> >> --- >> arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c >> index dfb7d65..b726b23 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c >> @@ -1781,8 +1781,8 @@ static int __set_memory_enc_dec(unsigned long addr, int numpages, bool enc) >> unsigned long start; >> int ret; >> >> - /* Nothing to do if the SME is not active */ >> - if (!sme_active()) >> + /* Nothing to do if SME and SEV are not active */ >> + if (!sme_active() && !sev_active()) > > This is the second place which does > > if (!SME && !SEV) > > I wonder if, instead of sprinking those, we should have a > > if (mem_enc_active()) > > or so which unifies all those memory encryption logic tests and makes > the code more straightforward for readers who don't have to pay > attention to SME vs SEV ...
Yup, that will make things look cleaner and easier to understand.
Thanks, Tom
> > Just a thought. >
| |