Re: [RFC Part1 PATCH v3 07/17] x86/mm: Include SEV for encryption memory attribute changes

[Borislav Petkov]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 02:07:47PM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx>
> 
> The current code checks only for sme_active() when determining whether
> to perform the encryption attribute change.  Include sev_active() in this
> check so that memory attribute changes can occur under SME and SEV.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>  arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
> index dfb7d65..b726b23 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
> @@ -1781,8 +1781,8 @@ static int __set_memory_enc_dec(unsigned long addr, int numpages, bool enc)
>  	unsigned long start;
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	/* Nothing to do if the SME is not active */
> -	if (!sme_active())
> +	/* Nothing to do if SME and SEV are not active */
> +	if (!sme_active() && !sev_active())

This is the second place which does

	if (!SME && !SEV)

I wonder if, instead of sprinking those, we should have a

	if (mem_enc_active())

or so which unifies all those memory encryption logic tests and makes
the code more straightforward for readers who don't have to pay
attention to SME vs SEV ...

Just a thought.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix ImendÃrffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG NÃrnberg)
--