Re: [PATCH v5 06/32] x86/mm: Add Secure Memory Encryption (SME) support

[Tom Lendacky]

On 5/4/2017 9:36 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 09:24:11AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > I did this so that an the include order wouldn't cause issues (including
> > asm/mem_encrypt.h followed by later by a linux/mem_encrypt.h include).
> > I can make this a bit clearer by having separate #defines for each
> > thing, e.g.:
> >
> > #ifndef sme_me_mask
> > #define sme_me_mask 0UL
> > #endif
> >
> > #ifndef sme_active
> > #define sme_active sme_active
> > static inline ...
> > #endif
> >
> > Is that better/clearer?
>
> I guess but where do we have to include both the asm/ and the linux/
> version?

It's more of the sequence of various includes.  For example,
init/do_mounts.c includes <linux/module.h> that eventually gets down
to <asm/pgtable_types.h> and then <asm/mem_encrypt.h>.  However, a
bit further down <linux/nfs_fs.h> is included which eventually gets
down to <linux/dma-mapping.h> and then <linux/mem_encyrpt.h>.

> IOW, can we avoid these issues altogether by partitioning symbol
> declarations differently among the headers?

It's most problematic when CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT is not defined since
we never include an asm/ version from the linux/ path.  I could create
a mem_encrypt.h in include/asm-generic/ that contains the info that
is in the !CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT path of the linux/ version. Let me
look into that.

Thanks,
Tom

>