Displaying 20 results from an estimated 37 matches for "set_memory_decrypted".
2019 May 08
2
[PATCH 04/10] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...def __ASSEMBLY__
> +
> +#define sme_me_mask 0ULL
This is rather ugly, but I understand why it's there
> +
> +static inline bool sme_active(void) { return false; }
> +extern bool sev_active(void);
> +
> +int set_memory_encrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
> +int set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
> +
> +#endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
> +
> +#endif /* S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__ */
> +
> diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/init.c b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
> index 3e82f66d5c61..7e3cbd15dcfa 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/mm/init.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
>...
2019 May 08
2
[PATCH 04/10] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...def __ASSEMBLY__
> +
> +#define sme_me_mask 0ULL
This is rather ugly, but I understand why it's there
> +
> +static inline bool sme_active(void) { return false; }
> +extern bool sev_active(void);
> +
> +int set_memory_encrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
> +int set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
> +
> +#endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
> +
> +#endif /* S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__ */
> +
> diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/init.c b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
> index 3e82f66d5c61..7e3cbd15dcfa 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/mm/init.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
>...
2020 Apr 14
3
[PATCH 40/70] x86/sev-es: Setup per-cpu GHCBs for the runtime handler
...gt; + /* Allocate GHCB pages */
>> + ghcb_page = __alloc_percpu(sizeof(struct ghcb), PAGE_SIZE);
>> +
>> + /* Initialize per-cpu GHCB pages */
>> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>> + struct ghcb *ghcb = (struct ghcb *)per_cpu_ptr(ghcb_page, cpu);
>> +
>> + set_memory_decrypted((unsigned long)ghcb,
>> + sizeof(*ghcb) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
>> + memset(ghcb, 0, sizeof(*ghcb));
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>
> set_memory_decrypted needs to check the return value. I see it
> consistently return ENOMEM. I've traced that back to split_l...
2020 Apr 14
3
[PATCH 40/70] x86/sev-es: Setup per-cpu GHCBs for the runtime handler
...gt; + /* Allocate GHCB pages */
>> + ghcb_page = __alloc_percpu(sizeof(struct ghcb), PAGE_SIZE);
>> +
>> + /* Initialize per-cpu GHCB pages */
>> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>> + struct ghcb *ghcb = (struct ghcb *)per_cpu_ptr(ghcb_page, cpu);
>> +
>> + set_memory_decrypted((unsigned long)ghcb,
>> + sizeof(*ghcb) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
>> + memset(ghcb, 0, sizeof(*ghcb));
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>
> set_memory_decrypted needs to check the return value. I see it
> consistently return ENOMEM. I've traced that back to split_l...
2019 Apr 26
2
[PATCH 04/10] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 08:32:39PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(set_memory_encrypted);
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(set_memory_decrypted);
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sev_active);
Why do you export these? I know x86 exports those as well, but
it shoudn't be needed there either.
2020 Apr 23
0
[PATCH 40/70] x86/sev-es: Setup per-cpu GHCBs for the runtime handler
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 06:33:13PM -0700, Bo Gan wrote:
> On 4/15/20 8:53 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 07:03:44PM +0000, Mike Stunes wrote:
> > > set_memory_decrypted needs to check the return value. I see it
> > > consistently return ENOMEM. I've traced that back to split_large_page
> > > in arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c.
> >
> > I agree that the return code needs to be checked. But I wonder why this
> > happens. The spli...
2019 Apr 26
2
[PATCH 04/10] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 08:32:39PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(set_memory_encrypted);
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(set_memory_decrypted);
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sev_active);
Why do you export these? I know x86 exports those as well, but
it shoudn't be needed there either.
2019 Apr 26
0
[PATCH 04/10] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
+#ifndef S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__
+#define S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__
+
+#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
+
+#define sme_me_mask 0ULL
+
+static inline bool sme_active(void) { return false; }
+extern bool sev_active(void);
+
+int set_memory_encrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
+int set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
+
+#endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
+
+#endif /* S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__ */
+
diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/init.c b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
index 3e82f66d5c61..7e3cbd15dcfa 100644
--- a/arch/s390/mm/init.c
+++ b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
#include <linux/mman.h>...
2019 May 09
0
[PATCH 04/10] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...LL
>
> This is rather ugly, but I understand why it's there
>
Nod.
> > +
> > +static inline bool sme_active(void) { return false; }
> > +extern bool sev_active(void);
> > +
> > +int set_memory_encrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
> > +int set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
> > +
> > +#endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
> > +
> > +#endif /* S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__ */
> > +
> > diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/init.c b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
> > index 3e82f66d5c61..7e3cbd15dcfa 100644
> > --- a/arch/s390/mm/in...
2019 May 09
0
[PATCH 04/10] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...{ return false; }
> +extern bool sev_active(void);
> +
I noticed this patch always returns false for sme_active. Is it safe to assume that
whatever fixups are required on x86 to deal with sme do not apply to s390?
> +int set_memory_encrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
> +int set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
> +
> +#endif??? /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
> +
> +#endif??? /* S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__ */
> +
> diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/init.c b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
> index 3e82f66d5c61..7e3cbd15dcfa 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/mm/init.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/mm/init....
2019 Apr 09
0
[RFC PATCH 03/12] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...10);
> }
>
> +int set_memory_encrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages)
> +{
> + /* also called for the swiotlb bounce buffers, make all pages shared */
> + /* TODO: do ultravisor calls */
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(set_memory_encrypted);
> +
> +int set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages)
> +{
> + /* also called for the swiotlb bounce buffers, make all pages shared */
> + /* TODO: do ultravisor calls */
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(set_memory_decrypted);
> +
> +/* are we a protected virtualization guest? */
> +b...
2019 Apr 29
1
[PATCH 04/10] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...19 15:59, Halil Pasic wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 12:27:11 -0700
> Christoph Hellwig <hch at infradead.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 08:32:39PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(set_memory_encrypted);
>>
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(set_memory_decrypted);
>>
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sev_active);
>>
>> Why do you export these? I know x86 exports those as well, but
>> it shoudn't be needed there either.
>>
>
> I export these to be in line with the x86 implementation (which
> is the original and see...
2020 Apr 14
1
[PATCH 40/70] x86/sev-es: Setup per-cpu GHCBs for the runtime handler
On 4/14/20 3:12 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 4/14/20 1:04 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>>> set_memory_decrypted needs to check the return value. I see it
>>> consistently return ENOMEM. I've traced that back to split_large_page
>>> in arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c.
>>
>> At that point the guest won't be able to communicate with the
>> hypervisor, too. Maybe we shoul...
2019 Jun 06
0
[PATCH v4 1/8] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
+#ifndef S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__
+#define S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__
+
+#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
+
+#define sme_me_mask 0ULL
+
+static inline bool sme_active(void) { return false; }
+extern bool sev_active(void);
+
+int set_memory_encrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
+int set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
+
+#endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
+
+#endif /* S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__ */
+
diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/init.c b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
index 14d1eae9fe43..f0bee6af3960 100644
--- a/arch/s390/mm/init.c
+++ b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
#include <linux/mman.h>...
2019 Jun 12
0
[PATCH v5 1/8] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
+#ifndef S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__
+#define S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__
+
+#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
+
+#define sme_me_mask 0ULL
+
+static inline bool sme_active(void) { return false; }
+extern bool sev_active(void);
+
+int set_memory_encrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
+int set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
+
+#endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
+
+#endif /* S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__ */
+
diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/init.c b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
index 14d1eae9fe43..f0bee6af3960 100644
--- a/arch/s390/mm/init.c
+++ b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
#include <linux/mman.h>...
2019 May 23
0
[PATCH v2 1/8] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
+#ifndef S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__
+#define S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__
+
+#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
+
+#define sme_me_mask 0ULL
+
+static inline bool sme_active(void) { return false; }
+extern bool sev_active(void);
+
+int set_memory_encrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
+int set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
+
+#endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
+
+#endif /* S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__ */
+
diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/init.c b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
index 14d1eae9fe43..f0bee6af3960 100644
--- a/arch/s390/mm/init.c
+++ b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
#include <linux/mman.h>...
2019 May 29
0
[PATCH v3 1/8] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
+#ifndef S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__
+#define S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__
+
+#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
+
+#define sme_me_mask 0ULL
+
+static inline bool sme_active(void) { return false; }
+extern bool sev_active(void);
+
+int set_memory_encrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
+int set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
+
+#endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
+
+#endif /* S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__ */
+
diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/init.c b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
index 14d1eae9fe43..f0bee6af3960 100644
--- a/arch/s390/mm/init.c
+++ b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
#include <linux/mman.h>...
2019 Apr 09
0
[RFC PATCH 03/12] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...ges)
> > > +{
> > > + /* also called for the swiotlb bounce buffers, make all pages shared */
> > > + /* TODO: do ultravisor calls */
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(set_memory_encrypted);
> > > +
> > > +int set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages)
> > > +{
> > > + /* also called for the swiotlb bounce buffers, make all pages shared */
> > > + /* TODO: do ultravisor calls */
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(set_memory_decrypted);
> &g...
2019 Apr 29
0
[PATCH 04/10] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 12:27:11 -0700
Christoph Hellwig <hch at infradead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 08:32:39PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(set_memory_encrypted);
>
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(set_memory_decrypted);
>
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sev_active);
>
> Why do you export these? I know x86 exports those as well, but
> it shoudn't be needed there either.
>
I export these to be in line with the x86 implementation (which
is the original and seems to be the only one at the moment...
2020 Apr 14
0
[PATCH 40/70] x86/sev-es: Setup per-cpu GHCBs for the runtime handler
On 4/14/20 1:04 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> set_memory_decrypted needs to check the return value. I see it
>> consistently return ENOMEM. I've traced that back to split_large_page
>> in arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c.
>
> At that point the guest won't be able to communicate with the
> hypervisor, too. Maybe we should BUG() here to ter...