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;
Date:   Fri, 12 Jul 2019 17:42:49 +0200
From:   Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com>, 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 <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        Mike Anderson <andmike@linux.ibm.com>,
        Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] fs/core/vmcore: Move sev_active() reference to x86
 arch code
In-Reply-To: <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>
        <20190712151129.GA30636@lst.de>
Organization: IBM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <20190712174249.33b74535.pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 17:11:29 +0200
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:

> 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.
> 

Will do! I guess I should do the patch against the for-next branch of the
dma-mapping tree. But that branch does not have the s390 support patches (yet?).
To fix it I need both e67a5ed1f86f and 64e1f0c531d1 "s390/mm: force
swiotlb for protected virtualization" (Halil Pasic, 2018-09-13). Or
should I wait for e67a5ed1f86f landing in mainline?

Regards,
Halil