Re: [PATCH v7 08/36] x86/mm: Add support to enable SME in early boot processing

From: Tom Lendacky
Date: Wed Jun 21 2017 - 14:30:48 EST

On 6/21/2017 10:38 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Tom Lendacky wrote:
On 6/21/2017 2:16 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Why is this an unconditional function? Isn't the mask simply 0 when the MEM
ENCRYPT support is disabled?

I made it unconditional because of the call from head_64.S. I can't make
use of the C level static inline function and since the mask is not a
variable if CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT is not configured (#defined to 0) I
can't reference the variable directly.

I could create a #define in head_64.S that changes this to load rax with
the variable if CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT is configured or a zero if it's
not or add a #ifdef at that point in the code directly. Thoughts on

See below.

That does not make any sense. Neither the call to sme_encrypt_kernel() nor
the following call to sme_get_me_mask().

__startup_64() is already C code, so why can't you simply call that from
__startup_64() in C and return the mask from there?

I was trying to keep it explicit as to what was happening, but I can
move those calls into __startup_64().

That's much preferred. And the return value wants to be documented in both
C and ASM code.

Will do.

I'll still need the call to sme_get_me_mask() in the secondary_startup_64
path, though (depending on your thoughts to the above response).

call verify_cpu

movq $(init_top_pgt - __START_KERNEL_map), %rax

So if you make that:

* Sanitize CPU configuration and retrieve the modifier
* for the initial pgdir entry which will be programmed
* into CR3. Depends on enabled SME encryption, normally 0.
call __startup_secondary_64

addq $(init_top_pgt - __START_KERNEL_map), %rax

You can hide that stuff in C-code nicely without adding any cruft to the
ASM code.

Moving the call to verify_cpu into the C-code might be quite a bit of
change. Currently, the verify_cpu code is included code and not a
global function. I can still do the __startup_secondary_64() function
and then look to incorporate verify_cpu into both __startup_64() and
__startup_secondary_64() as a post-patch to this series. At least the
secondary path will have a base C routine to which modifications can
be made in the future if needed. How does that sound?