Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1470127 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-25 15:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-08-30 17:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
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.
Re: [RFC PATCH v2 04/20] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (SME) support Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-08-25 15:10 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v2 04/20] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (SME) support Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-08-30 17:00 +0200
| From | Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 15:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v2 04/20] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (SME) support |
| Message-ID | <sa2zT-1n5-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Tom Lendacky wrote: > Provide support for Secure Memory Encryption (SME). This initial support > defines the memory encryption mask as a variable for quick access and an > accessor for retrieving the number of physical addressing bits lost if > SME is enabled. What is the reason that this needs to live in assembly code? Thanks, tglx
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 17:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v2 04/20] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (SME) support |
| Message-ID | <sbSG5-6ew-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1470127 |
On Aug 30, 2016 6:34 AM, "Tom Lendacky" <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> wrote: > > On 08/25/2016 08:04 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Tom Lendacky wrote: > > > >> Provide support for Secure Memory Encryption (SME). This initial support > >> defines the memory encryption mask as a variable for quick access and an > >> accessor for retrieving the number of physical addressing bits lost if > >> SME is enabled. > > > > What is the reason that this needs to live in assembly code? > > In later patches this code is expanded and deals with a lot of page > table manipulation, cpuid/rdmsr instructions, etc. and so I thought it > was best to do it this way. None of that sounds like it needs to be in asm, though. I, at least, have a strong preference for minimizing the amount of asm in the low-level arch code. --Andy
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web