On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:38:20PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote: > Add support to the AMD IOMMU driver to set the memory encryption mask if > memory encryption is enabled. > > Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lenda...@amd.com> > --- > arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h | 2 ++ > arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c | 5 +++++ > drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c | 10 ++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h > b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h > index 384fdfb..e395729 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h > @@ -36,6 +36,8 @@ void __init sme_early_init(void); > /* Architecture __weak replacement functions */ > void __init mem_encrypt_init(void); > > +unsigned long amd_iommu_get_me_mask(void); > + > unsigned long swiotlb_get_me_mask(void); > void swiotlb_set_mem_dec(void *vaddr, unsigned long size); > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c b/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c > index 6b2e8bf..2f28d87 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c > @@ -185,6 +185,11 @@ void __init mem_encrypt_init(void) > swiotlb_clear_encryption(); > } > > +unsigned long amd_iommu_get_me_mask(void) > +{ > + return sme_me_mask; > +} > + > unsigned long swiotlb_get_me_mask(void) > { > return sme_me_mask; > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c > index 96de97a..63995e3 100644 > --- a/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c > +++ b/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c > @@ -166,6 +166,15 @@ struct dma_ops_domain { > static struct iova_domain reserved_iova_ranges; > static struct lock_class_key reserved_rbtree_key; > > +/* > + * Support for memory encryption. If memory encryption is supported, then an > + * override to this function will be provided. > + */ > +unsigned long __weak amd_iommu_get_me_mask(void) > +{ > + return 0; > +}
So instead of adding a function each time which returns sme_me_mask for each user it has, why don't you add a single function which returns sme_me_mask in mem_encrypt.c and add an inline in the header mem_encrypt.h which returns 0 for the !CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT case. This all is still funny because we access sme_me_mask directly for the different KERNEL_* masks but then you're adding an accessor function. So what you should do instead, IMHO, is either hide sme_me_mask altogether and use the accessor functions only (not sure if that would work in all cases) or expose sme_me_mask unconditionally and have it be 0 if CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT is not enabled so that it just works. Or is there a third, more graceful variant? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html