-Original Message-
> Hi kazuhito san,
>
> Just following up on my last email.
> Sincere apologies for asking for your time.
> I want to specifically understand what the "user data" section is and
> what it means to exclude it from the dump.
"user data" are anonymous pages or huge pages.
h
On 7/27/21 5:26 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> This patch series provides a generic helper function, prot_guest_has(),
> to replace the sme_active(), sev_active(), sev_es_active() and
> mem_encrypt_active() functions.
>
> It is expected that as new protected virtualization technologies are
> added to t
The mem_encrypt_active() function has been replaced by prot_guest_has(),
so remove the implementation.
Cc: Michael Ellerman
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Cc: Paul Mackerras
Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h | 5 -
1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
diff --gi
The mem_encrypt_active() function has been replaced by prot_guest_has(),
so remove the implementation.
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Borislav Petkov
Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky
---
arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h | 5 -
1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/in
The mem_encrypt_active() function has been replaced by prot_guest_has(),
so remove the implementation.
Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky
---
include/linux/mem_encrypt.h | 4
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/mem_encrypt.h b/include/linux/mem_encrypt.h
index 5c4a18a91f89..
Replace occurrences of mem_encrypt_active() with calls to prot_guest_has()
with the PATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT attribute.
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Borislav Petkov
Cc: Dave Hansen
Cc: Andy Lutomirski
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: David Airlie
Cc: Daniel Vetter
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst
Cc: Maxi
Replace occurrences of sev_es_active() with the more generic
prot_guest_has() using PATTR_GUEST_PROT_STATE, except for in
arch/x86/kernel/sev*.c and arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt*.c where PATTR_SEV_ES
will be used. If future support is added for other memory encyrption
techonologies, the use of PATTR_GUE
Replace occurrences of sev_active() with the more generic prot_guest_has()
using PATTR_GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT, except for in arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt*.c
where PATTR_SEV will be used. If future support is added for other memory
encryption technologies, the use of PATTR_GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT can be
updated, as
Replace occurrences of sme_active() with the more generic prot_guest_has()
using PATTR_HOST_MEM_ENCRYPT, except for in arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt*.c
where PATTR_SME will be used. If future support is added for other memory
encryption technologies, the use of PATTR_HOST_MEM_ENCRYPT can be
updated, as r
The mem_encrypt_active() function has been replaced by prot_guest_has(),
so remove the implementation. Since the default implementation of the
prot_guest_has() matches the s390 implementation of mem_encrypt_active(),
prot_guest_has() does not need to be implemented in s390 (the config
option ARCH_H
Introduce a powerpc version of the prot_guest_has() function. This will
be used to replace the powerpc mem_encrypt_active() implementation, so
the implementation will initially only support the PATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT
attribute.
Cc: Michael Ellerman
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Cc: Paul Mackerras
Signe
Introduce an x86 version of the prot_guest_has() function. This will be
used in the more generic x86 code to replace vendor specific calls like
sev_active(), etc.
While the name suggests this is intended mainly for guests, it will
also be used for host memory encryption checks in place of sme_acti
In prep for other protected virtualization technologies, introduce a
generic helper function, prot_guest_has(), that can be used to check
for specific protection attributes, like memory encryption. This is
intended to eliminate having to add multiple technology-specific checks
to the code (e.g. if
This patch series provides a generic helper function, prot_guest_has(),
to replace the sme_active(), sev_active(), sev_es_active() and
mem_encrypt_active() functions.
It is expected that as new protected virtualization technologies are
added to the kernel, they can all be covered by a single funct
On Thu 2021-07-15 21:39:53, John Ogness wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is v4 of a series to remove the safe buffers. v3 can be
> found here [0]. The safe buffers are no longer needed because
> messages can be stored directly into the log buffer from any
> context.
>
> However, the safe buffers also provid
Hi kazuhito san,
Just following up on my last email.
Sincere apologies for asking for your time.
I want to specifically understand what the "user data" section is and
what it means to exclude it from the dump.
Thank you very much.
Best Regards,
Manty
On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 10:45 AM manty kuma
16 matches
Mail list logo