Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 Jan 2022 19:02:26 +0300 | From | "Kirill A. Shutemov" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 19/26] x86/tdx: Make pages shared in ioremap() |
| |
On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 08:16:49AM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote: > On 1/4/22 6:43 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > > On 1/4/22 4:31 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 12:36:06PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > > @@ -57,7 +58,6 @@ typedef struct { unsigned long iopte; } > > > > typedef struct { unsigned long pmd; } pmd_t; > > > > typedef struct { unsigned long pgd; } pgd_t; > > > > typedef struct { unsigned long ctxd; } ctxd_t; > > > > -typedef struct { unsigned long pgprot; } pgprot_t; > > > > typedef struct { unsigned long iopgprot; } iopgprot_t; > > > > #define pte_val(x) ((x).pte) > > > > @@ -85,7 +85,6 @@ typedef unsigned long iopte_t; > > > > typedef unsigned long pmd_t; > > > > typedef unsigned long pgd_t; > > > > typedef unsigned long ctxd_t; > > > > -typedef unsigned long pgprot_t; > > > > typedef unsigned long iopgprot_t; > > > > #define pte_val(x) (x) > > > > > > Any arch that use STRICT_MM_TYPECHECKS hacks will get broken if compiled > > > without the define (as sparc by default). > > > > My read of STRICT_MM_TYPECHECKS was that "typedef unsigned long > > pgprot_t" produces better code, but "typedef struct { unsigned long > > pgprot; } pgprot_t;" produces better type checking. > > > > I just compiled these patches on sparc with no issues. > > > > ... > > > Is it the way to go we want? > > > > I _think_ this was all a result of some review feedback from Tom > > Lendacky about where the encryption-modifying pgprot helpers got placed > > in the code. I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm not quite sure > > that this is worth the trouble. > > > > I'd be curious what Tom thinks now that he's gotten a peek at what it's > > going to take to address his concerns. > > I have vague memories of pgprot_t and what a pain it could be, which is why > my feedback suggested putting it in cc_platform.c, but said there might be > issues :) > > I'm fine with it living somewhere else, just thought it would be nice to > have everything consolidated, if possible.
In this case I would rather leave it in <asm/pgtable.h>. We still can rename it to cc_pgprot_decrypted()/cc_pgprot_encrypted().
-- Kirill A. Shutemov
| |