Displaying 20 results from an estimated 35 matches for "sme_me_mask".
2020 Apr 28
0
[PATCH v3 38/75] x86/sev-es: Add SEV-ES Feature Detection
...insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
index 848ce43b9040..6f61bb93366a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
#ifdef CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT
extern u64 sme_me_mask;
+extern u64 sev_status;
extern bool sev_enabled;
void sme_encrypt_execute(unsigned long encrypted_kernel_vaddr,
@@ -49,6 +50,7 @@ void __init mem_encrypt_free_decrypted_mem(void);
bool sme_active(void);
bool sev_active(void);
+bool sev_es_active(void);
#define __bss_decrypted __attribut...
2020 Jul 24
0
[PATCH v5 38/75] x86/sev-es: Add SEV-ES Feature Detection
...insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
index 5049f6c22683..4e72b73a9cb5 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
#ifdef CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT
extern u64 sme_me_mask;
+extern u64 sev_status;
extern bool sev_enabled;
void sme_encrypt_execute(unsigned long encrypted_kernel_vaddr,
@@ -50,6 +51,7 @@ void __init mem_encrypt_init(void);
bool sme_active(void);
bool sev_active(void);
+bool sev_es_active(void);
#define __bss_decrypted __attribute__((__section...
2020 Sep 07
0
[PATCH v7 36/72] x86/sev-es: Add SEV-ES Feature Detection
...insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
index 5049f6c22683..4e72b73a9cb5 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
#ifdef CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT
extern u64 sme_me_mask;
+extern u64 sev_status;
extern bool sev_enabled;
void sme_encrypt_execute(unsigned long encrypted_kernel_vaddr,
@@ -50,6 +51,7 @@ void __init mem_encrypt_init(void);
bool sme_active(void);
bool sev_active(void);
+bool sev_es_active(void);
#define __bss_decrypted __attribute__((__section...
2020 Aug 24
0
[PATCH v6 39/76] x86/sev-es: Add SEV-ES Feature Detection
...insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
index 5049f6c22683..4e72b73a9cb5 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
#ifdef CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT
extern u64 sme_me_mask;
+extern u64 sev_status;
extern bool sev_enabled;
void sme_encrypt_execute(unsigned long encrypted_kernel_vaddr,
@@ -50,6 +51,7 @@ void __init mem_encrypt_init(void);
bool sme_active(void);
bool sev_active(void);
+bool sev_es_active(void);
#define __bss_decrypted __attribute__((__section...
2018 Apr 30
2
elrepo kmod-nvidia issue with update
when I do yum update, elrepo offers kmod-nvifdia, but yum does this:
--> Processing Dependency: kernel(sme_me_mask) = 0x17fbce60 for package:
kmod-nvidia-390.48-2.el7_5.elrepo.x86_64
--> Processing Dependency: kernel(reservation_object_add_excl_fence) =
0xea98efc0 for package: kmod-nvidia-390.48-2.el7_5.elrepo.x86_64
--> Processing Dependency: kernel(drm_vblank_init) = 0xdcd50a49 for
package: kmod-nvid...
2019 May 08
2
[PATCH 04/10] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...644
> index 000000000000..0898c09a888c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> +#ifndef S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__
> +#define S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__
> +
> +#ifndef __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 nump...
2019 May 08
2
[PATCH 04/10] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...644
> index 000000000000..0898c09a888c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> +#ifndef S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__
> +#define S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__
> +
> +#ifndef __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 nump...
2020 Aug 24
0
[PATCH v6 20/76] x86/boot/compressed/64: Call set_sev_encryption_mask earlier
...d long end)
/* Locates and clears a region for a new top level page table. */
void initialize_identity_maps(void)
{
- /* If running as an SEV guest, the encryption mask is required. */
- set_sev_encryption_mask();
-
/* Exclude the encryption mask from __PHYSICAL_MASK */
physical_mask &= ~sme_me_mask;
--
2.28.0
2018 May 01
0
elrepo kmod-nvidia issue with update
On 04/30/2018 05:20 PM, Chuck Campbell wrote:
> when I do yum update, elrepo offers kmod-nvifdia, but yum does this:
>
> --> Processing Dependency: kernel(sme_me_mask) = 0x17fbce60 for
> package: kmod-nvidia-390.48-2.el7_5.elrepo.x86_64
> --> Processing Dependency: kernel(reservation_object_add_excl_fence) =
> 0xea98efc0 for package: kmod-nvidia-390.48-2.el7_5.elrepo.x86_64
> --> Processing Dependency: kernel(drm_vblank_init) = 0xdcd50a49 for...
2018 May 01
1
elrepo kmod-nvidia issue with update
On 01/05/18 02:33, Paul R. Ganci wrote:
>
> On 04/30/2018 05:20 PM, Chuck Campbell wrote:
>> when I do yum update, elrepo offers kmod-nvifdia, but yum does this:
>>
>> --> Processing Dependency: kernel(sme_me_mask) = 0x17fbce60 for
>> package: kmod-nvidia-390.48-2.el7_5.elrepo.x86_64
>> --> Processing Dependency: kernel(reservation_object_add_excl_fence) =
>> 0xea98efc0 for package: kmod-nvidia-390.48-2.el7_5.elrepo.x86_64
>> --> Processing Dependency: kernel(drm_vblank_init)...
2019 Apr 26
0
[PATCH 04/10] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...b/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..0898c09a888c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+/* SPDX-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/a...
2019 Jun 06
0
[PATCH v4 1/8] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...b/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..0898c09a888c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+/* SPDX-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/a...
2019 Jun 12
0
[PATCH v5 1/8] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...b/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..0898c09a888c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+/* SPDX-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/a...
2019 May 23
0
[PATCH v2 1/8] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...b/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..0898c09a888c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+/* SPDX-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/a...
2019 May 29
0
[PATCH v3 1/8] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...b/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..0898c09a888c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+/* SPDX-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/a...
2019 May 09
0
[PATCH 04/10] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...; --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > +#ifndef S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__
> > +#define S390_MEM_ENCRYPT_H__
> > +
> > +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> > +
> > +#define sme_me_mask 0ULL
>
> 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);
> > +i...
2019 May 09
0
[PATCH 04/10] s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization
...644
> index 000000000000..0898c09a888c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> +/* SPDX-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);
> +
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_memor...
2019 Apr 26
33
[PATCH 00/10] s390: virtio: support protected virtualization
Enhanced virtualization protection technology may require the use of
bounce buffers for I/O. While support for this was built into the virtio
core, virtio-ccw wasn't changed accordingly.
Some background on technology (not part of this series) and the
terminology used.
* Protected Virtualization (PV):
Protected Virtualization guarantees, that non-shared memory of a guest
that operates in PV
2019 Apr 26
33
[PATCH 00/10] s390: virtio: support protected virtualization
Enhanced virtualization protection technology may require the use of
bounce buffers for I/O. While support for this was built into the virtio
core, virtio-ccw wasn't changed accordingly.
Some background on technology (not part of this series) and the
terminology used.
* Protected Virtualization (PV):
Protected Virtualization guarantees, that non-shared memory of a guest
that operates in PV
2020 Feb 11
83
[RFC PATCH 00/62] Linux as SEV-ES Guest Support
Hi,
here is the first public post of the patch-set to enable Linux to run
under SEV-ES enabled hypervisors. The code is mostly feature-complete,
but there are still a couple of bugs to fix. Nevertheless, given the
size of the patch-set, I think it is about time to ask for initial
feedback of the changes that come with it. To better understand the code
here is a quick explanation of SEV-ES first.