Re: [PATCH v5 32/32] x86/mm: Add support to make use of Secure Memory Encryption

[Tom Lendacky]

On 5/31/2017 3:49 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 10:37:03AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > I can define the command line option and the "on" and "off" values as
> > character buffers in the function and initialize them on a per character
> > basis (using a static string causes the same issues as referencing a
> > string constant), i.e.:
> >
> > char cmdline_arg[] = {'m', 'e', 'm', '_', 'e', 'n', 'c', 'r', 'y', 'p', 't', '\0'};
> > char cmdline_off[] = {'o', 'f', 'f', '\0'};
> > char cmdline_on[] = {'o', 'n', '\0'};
> >
> > It doesn't look the greatest, but it works and removes the need for the
> > rip-relative addressing.
>
> Well, I'm not thrilled about this one either. It's like being between a
> rock and a hard place. :-\
>
> On the one hand, we need the encryption mask before we do the fixups and
> OTOH we need to do the fixups in order to access the strings properly.
> Yuck.
>
> Well, the only thing I can think of right now is maybe define
> "mem_encrypt=" at the end of head_64.S and pass it in from asm to
> sme_enable() and then do the "on"/"off" comparsion with local char
> buffers. That could make it less ugly...

I like keeping the command line option and the values together. It may
not look the greatest but I like it more than defining the command line
option in head_64.S and passing it in as an argument.

OTOH, I don't think the rip-relative addressing was that bad, I can
always go back to that...

Thanks,
Tom

>