Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1388996 > unrolled thread

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 02/18] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (SME) build enablement

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [RFC PATCH v1 02/18] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (SME) build  enablement Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2016-04-27 14:50 +0200
    Re: [RFC PATCH v1 02/18] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (SME) build  enablement Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2016-04-27 17:40 +0200
      Re: [RFC PATCH v1 02/18] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (SME) build  enablement Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2016-04-27 17:50 +0200
        Re: [RFC PATCH v1 02/18] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (SME) build  enablement Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2016-04-27 18:50 +0200
          Re: [RFC PATCH v1 02/18] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (SME) build  enablement Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> - 2016-04-27 19:10 +0200
          Re: [RFC PATCH v1 02/18] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (SME) build  enablement Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2016-04-27 19:20 +0200

#1388996 — Re: [RFC PATCH v1 02/18] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (SME) build enablement

On Tue 2016-04-26 17:56:14, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> Provide the Kconfig support to build the SME support in the kernel.


Probably should go last in the series?

> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/Kconfig |    9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> index 7bb1574..13249b5 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> @@ -1356,6 +1356,15 @@ config X86_DIRECT_GBPAGES
>  	  supports them), so don't confuse the user by printing
>  	  that we have them enabled.
>  
> +config AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT
> +	bool "Secure Memory Encryption support for AMD"
> +	depends on X86_64 && CPU_SUP_AMD
> +	---help---
> +	  Say yes to enable the encryption of system memory. This requires
> +	  an AMD processor that supports Secure Memory Encryption (SME).
> +	  The encryption of system memory is disabled by default but can be
> +	  enabled with the mem_encrypt=on command line option.
> +
>  # Common NUMA Features
>  config NUMA
>  	bool "Numa Memory Allocation and Scheduler Support"

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1389234

On Wed 2016-04-27 10:17:36, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 03/22/2016 08:01 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Tue 2016-04-26 17:56:14, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> >> Provide the Kconfig support to build the SME support in the kernel.
> > 
> > 
> > Probably should go last in the series?
> 
> Yeah, I've seen arguments both ways for this. Doing it early
> allows compiling and testing with it enabled and doing it late
> doesn't enable anything until it's all there. I just chose the
> former.

Doing it early will break bisect, right?
							Pavel

> >> +config AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT
> >> +	bool "Secure Memory Encryption support for AMD"
> >> +	depends on X86_64 && CPU_SUP_AMD
> >> +	---help---
> >> +	  Say yes to enable the encryption of system memory. This requires
> >> +	  an AMD processor that supports Secure Memory Encryption (SME).
> >> +	  The encryption of system memory is disabled by default but can be
> >> +	  enabled with the mem_encrypt=on command line option.
> >> +
> >>  # Common NUMA Features
> >>  config NUMA
> >>  	bool "Numa Memory Allocation and Scheduler Support"
> > 

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1389267

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 05:30:10PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Doing it early will break bisect, right?

How exactly? Please do tell.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1389360

On Wed 2016-04-27 17:41:40, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 05:30:10PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Doing it early will break bisect, right?
> 
> How exactly? Please do tell.

Hey look, SME slowed down 30% since being initially merged into
kernel!
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1389378

On 27/04/16 17:41, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Wed 2016-04-27 17:41:40, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 05:30:10PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> Doing it early will break bisect, right?
>>
>> How exactly? Please do tell.
>
> Hey look, SME slowed down 30% since being initially merged into
> kernel!

As opposed to "well, bisection shows these n+1 complicated changes are 
all fine and the crash is down to this Kconfig patch", presumably. I'm 
sure we all love spending a whole afternoon only to find that, right? :P

Robin.

> 									Pavel
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1389384

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 06:41:37PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hey look, SME slowed down 30% since being initially merged into
> kernel!

How is that breaking bisection?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web