Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Mon, 21 Feb 2022 20:49:11 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, luto@kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com,
        aarcange@redhat.com, ak@linux.intel.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
        david@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, jgross@suse.com,
        jmattson@google.com, joro@8bytes.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
        knsathya@kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, sdeep@vmware.com,
        seanjc@google.com, tony.luck@intel.com, vkuznets@redhat.com,
        wanpengli@tencent.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 02/32] x86/coco: Add API to handle encryption mask
Message-ID: <YhPst1DdG3T5hsnM@zn.tnic>
References: <20220218161718.67148-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20220218161718.67148-3-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <66fcd7e7-deb6-f27e-9fc6-33293ce04f16@intel.com>
 <20220218213300.2bs4t3admhozonaq@black.fi.intel.com>
 <7ebd6ba1-85a4-6fee-c897-22ed108ac8b7@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7ebd6ba1-85a4-6fee-c897-22ed108ac8b7@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 11:28:16AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> Why don't we just have:
> 
> 	pgprot_t cc_mkenc(pgprot prot)
> 	pgprot_t cc_mkenc(pgprot prot)
> 
> and *no* pgprot_{en,de}crypted()?

Yes, and can the above cc_get_mask() thing be:

	cpa.mask_set = enc ? cc_mkenc(0) : cc_mkdec(0);
	cpa.mask_clr = enc ? cc_mkdec(0) : cc_mkenc(0);

since we're going to feed it pgprot things?

And then you don't need a separate cc_get_mask() thing or whatever
- there's only those two mkenc and mkdec things converting pgprots
back'n'forth.

> sme_me_mask does look quite AMD-specialized, like its assembly
> manipulation.  Even if it's just a copy of cc_mask, it would be nice to
> call that out so the relationship is crystal clear.

Yes, the ultimate goal is to have cc_mask be shared by both AMD and
Intel. We'll phase out sme_me_mask on the AMD side gradually while Intel
can use cc_mask directly.

Methinks.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette