lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/mm: add .data..decrypted section to hold shared variables
From
Date


On 08/29/2018 10:03 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 05:12:56PM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>> kvmclock defines few static variables which are shared with hypervisor
>> during the kvmclock initialization.
>>
>> When SEV is active, memory is encrypted with a guest-specific key, and
>> if guest OS wants to share the memory region with hypervisor then it must
>> clear the C-bit before sharing it. Currently, we use
>> kernel_physical_mapping_init() to split large pages before clearing the
>> C-bit on shared pages. But the kernel_physical_mapping_init fails when
>> called from the kvmclock initialization (mainly because memblock allocator
>> was not ready).
>>
>> The '__decrypted' can be used to define a shared variable; the variables
>> will be put in the .data.decryption section. This section is mapped with
>> C=0 early in the boot, we also ensure that the initialized values are
>> updated to match with C=0 (i.e perform an in-place decryption). The
>> .data..decrypted section is PMD aligned and sized so that we avoid the
>> need to split the large pages when mapping this section.
>
> What about naming the attribute (and section) '__unencrypted' instead
> of '__decrypted'? The attribute should be a property describing how
> the data must be accessed, it shouldn't imply anything regarding the
> history of the data. Decrypted implies that data was once encrypted,
> whereas unencrypted simply states that the data is stored in plain
> text. All data that has been decrypted is also unencrypted, but the
> reverse does not hold true.
>


During the initial SEV/SME patch review cycle we had some discussion
about using decrypted vs unencrypted. At that time the consensus was
that a memory range mapped with C=0 should be referred as 'decrypted'.
Having said so, I do see your point and I am not oppose to calling it
'unencrypted' if others agrees to it.

Tom and Boris, thoughts ?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-29 17:34    [W:0.178 / U:1.492 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site