On 1/7/2018 12:25 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 04:03:21PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> @@ -568,17 +578,57 @@ static void __init sme_populate_pgd_large(struct 
>> sme_populate_pgd_data *ppd)
>>              native_set_pud(pud_p, pud);
>>      }
>>  
>> +    return pmd_p;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void __init sme_populate_pgd_large(struct sme_populate_pgd_data *ppd)
>> +{
>> +    pmd_t *pmd_p;
>> +
>> +    pmd_p = sme_prepare_pgd(ppd);
>> +    if (!pmd_p)
>> +            return;
>> +
>>      pmd_p += pmd_index(ppd->vaddr);
>>      if (!native_pmd_val(*pmd_p) || !(native_pmd_val(*pmd_p) & _PAGE_PSE))
>>              native_set_pmd(pmd_p,
>>                             native_make_pmd(ppd->paddr | ppd->pmd_flags));
> 
> Ugly linebreak.

That one will be fixed in the previous patch.

> 
>>  }
>>  
>> -static void __init __sme_map_range(struct sme_populate_pgd_data *ppd,
>> -                               pmdval_t pmd_flags)
>> +static void __init sme_populate_pgd(struct sme_populate_pgd_data *ppd)
>>  {
>> -    ppd->pmd_flags = pmd_flags;
>> +    pmd_t *pmd_p;
>> +    pte_t *pte_p;
>> +
>> +    pmd_p = sme_prepare_pgd(ppd);
>> +    if (!pmd_p)
>> +            return;
>> +
>> +    pmd_p += pmd_index(ppd->vaddr);
>> +    if (native_pmd_val(*pmd_p)) {
>> +            if (native_pmd_val(*pmd_p) & _PAGE_PSE)
>> +                    return;
>> +
>> +            pte_p = (pte_t *)(native_pmd_val(*pmd_p) & ~PTE_FLAGS_MASK);
>> +    } else {
>> +            pmd_t pmd;
>>  
>> +            pte_p = ppd->pgtable_area;
>> +            memset(pte_p, 0, sizeof(*pte_p) * PTRS_PER_PTE);
>> +            ppd->pgtable_area += sizeof(*pte_p) * PTRS_PER_PTE;
>> +
>> +            pmd = native_make_pmd((pteval_t)pte_p + PMD_FLAGS);
>> +            native_set_pmd(pmd_p, pmd);
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    pte_p += pte_index(ppd->vaddr);
>> +    if (!native_pte_val(*pte_p))
>> +            native_set_pte(pte_p,
>> +                           native_make_pte(ppd->paddr | ppd->pte_flags));
> 
> Ditto.

And this one will be fixed here.

Thanks,
Tom

> 

Reply via email to