On 8/10/21 12:48 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
On 8/10/21 1:45 PM, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
On 7/27/21 3:26 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/head64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/head64.c
index de01903c3735..cafed6456d45 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/head64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/head64.c
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
#include <linux/start_kernel.h>
#include <linux/io.h>
#include <linux/memblock.h>
-#include <linux/mem_encrypt.h>
+#include <linux/protected_guest.h>
#include <linux/pgtable.h>
#include <asm/processor.h>
@@ -285,7 +285,7 @@ unsigned long __head __startup_64(unsigned long
physaddr,
* there is no need to zero it after changing the memory encryption
* attribute.
*/
- if (mem_encrypt_active()) {
+ if (prot_guest_has(PATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT)) {
vaddr = (unsigned long)__start_bss_decrypted;
vaddr_end = (unsigned long)__end_bss_decrypted;
Since this change is specific to AMD, can you replace PATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT with
prot_guest_has(PATTR_SME) || prot_guest_has(PATTR_SEV). It is not used in
TDX.
This is a direct replacement for now. I think the change you're requesting
should be done as part of the TDX support patches so it's clear why it is
being changed.
Ok. I will include it part of TDX changes.
But, wouldn't TDX still need to do something with this shared/unencrypted
area, though? Or since it is shared, there's actually nothing you need to
do (the bss decrpyted section exists even if CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT is not
configured)?
Kirill had a requirement to turn on CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT for adding lazy
accept support in TDX guest kernel. Kirill, can you add details here?
Thanks,
Tom
--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
