Received: by 2002:a25:ad19:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id y25csp1010648ybi; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 08:12:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw1yy1twN9cX9OjgKPF3kbjXSpQ9+PBFflXSL7o1WuWYIMlxLy1kyriLly91ua6N7MXjfgx X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:20b:: with SMTP id 11mr12233080plc.78.1562944334969; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 08:12:14 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1562944334; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=HDX34reUn47IePH6wv8N6dgfABJXVWPw5/oYTve/S9Vv+gkoY/0bHVGHypvi/vCXJ4 1bRsLJ9e11xiY6iilw/QSHsMYagbdV5yTaeIIrhQzgiCP0rma+TrHm/NbHu4fE/xYmtu d5mywyl67Puz945n2ouKq7j1/609hABclvQ7CeSDnY/0/mkxkA7H46G+7pg5d1gyxLaK a80kFb25O0IJUK91TiUT6MWohEwnwUnkEr4AENmolDGTLHORQ4EKvsd+9QAlmItfHEW/ ximq9cKRphMed4Mc5la+3xB0RsRGy+SVcmc+/SqLXhko8kUPIMLOxmr7MXmq7OU2auIt ZBlw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=vGH7kg9GmRhUGTuR5qoeeFMbb7AI/G7NCXxiTI5QCvg=; b=V6O0sMby3n+iq1RJ6ebow/GiXvxJ8XKHFqxThsCNyTq6Yi2sNZW7Q/yHXdJKpOPQfH DsxEgWYQgCCtrVPh9+5ivcsjyDargZZ/nFHyGQLsJZVJzuvPHeM0g4KXx9WI/6ggbcur OTElp2R0A9yskK9RkJEXnIZZir6ERRlmPTu9Pof57Osnk3WwdUUMDsXws6r9c8koE/MM 9Qx7QdPW/a3YC1n59vEkQZ2w4x2XZaMqXIWJIhw/p7N2UgbypURi1QE8mB3rK+Ru/0rV Pjc//HrfxDyuKfAl5fiCejnf+3v+fXSkZWHZVT3zEWOQ5ehUD/cWq4oXXvoaiMwg0hsV d4uQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ay3si7767203plb.174.2019.07.12.08.11.59; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 08:12:14 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727125AbfGLPLc (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:11:32 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:38899 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726977AbfGLPLc (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:11:32 -0400 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 7887F227A81; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 17:11:29 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 17:11:29 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Halil Pasic Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Thiago Jung Bauermann , x86@kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H. Peter Anvin" , Marek Szyprowski , Robin Murphy , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Alexey Dobriyan , Mike Anderson , Ram Pai Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] fs/core/vmcore: Move sev_active() reference to x86 arch code Message-ID: <20190712151129.GA30636@lst.de> References: <20190712053631.9814-1-bauerman@linux.ibm.com> <20190712053631.9814-4-bauerman@linux.ibm.com> <20190712150912.3097215e.pasic@linux.ibm.com> <20190712140812.GA29628@lst.de> <20190712165153.78d49095.pasic@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190712165153.78d49095.pasic@linux.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 04:51:53PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote: > Thank you very much! I will have another look, but it seems to me, > without further measures taken, this would break protected virtualization > support on s390. The effect of the che for s390 is that > force_dma_unencrypted() will always return false instead calling into > the platform code like it did before the patch, right? > > Should I send a Fixes: e67a5ed1f86f "dma-direct: Force unencrypted DMA > under SME for certain DMA masks" (Tom Lendacky, 2019-07-10) patch that > rectifies things for s390 or how do we want handle this? Yes, please do. I hadn't noticed the s390 support had landed in mainline already.