On 7/24/19 1:40 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 06:30:21PM +, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
>> On 7/24/19 1:11 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 05:34:26PM +, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
On 7/24/19 12:06 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 24/07/2019
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 06:30:21PM +, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> On 7/24/19 1:11 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 05:34:26PM +, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> >> On 7/24/19 12:06 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> >>> On 24/07/2019 17:42, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> On 7/24/19
On 7/24/19 1:11 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 05:34:26PM +, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
>> On 7/24/19 12:06 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> On 24/07/2019 17:42, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
On 7/24/19 10:55 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 07:01:19PM
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 05:34:26PM +, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> On 7/24/19 12:06 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > On 24/07/2019 17:42, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> >> On 7/24/19 10:55 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 07:01:19PM +, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> @@ -351,6
On 7/24/19 12:06 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 24/07/2019 17:42, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
>> On 7/24/19 10:55 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 07:01:19PM +, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
@@ -351,6 +355,32 @@ bool sev_active(void)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(sev_active);
On 24/07/2019 17:42, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
On 7/24/19 10:55 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 07:01:19PM +, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
@@ -351,6 +355,32 @@ bool sev_active(void)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(sev_active);
+/* Override for DMA direct allocation check - ARCH_HAS_FO
On 7/24/19 10:55 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 07:01:19PM +, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
>> @@ -351,6 +355,32 @@ bool sev_active(void)
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(sev_active);
>>
>> +/* Override for DMA direct allocation check -
>> ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED */
>> +bool
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 07:01:19PM +, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> @@ -351,6 +355,32 @@ bool sev_active(void)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(sev_active);
>
> +/* Override for DMA direct allocation check - ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED
> */
> +bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> this looks good to me. I'll wait a bit for feedback from the x86 folks,
> and if everything is fine I'll apply it to the dma-mapping tree.
Go ahead.
On Wed, 10 Jul 2019, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> From: Tom Lendacky
>
> If a device doesn't support DMA to a physical address that includes the
> encryption bit (currently bit 47, so 48-bit DMA), then the DMA must
> occur to unencrypted memory. SWIOTLB is used to satisfy that requirement
> if an I
Hi Tom,
this looks good to me. I'll wait a bit for feedback from the x86 folks,
and if everything is fine I'll apply it to the dma-mapping tree.
From: Tom Lendacky
If a device doesn't support DMA to a physical address that includes the
encryption bit (currently bit 47, so 48-bit DMA), then the DMA must
occur to unencrypted memory. SWIOTLB is used to satisfy that requirement
if an IOMMU is not active (enabled or configured in passthrough m
12 matches
Mail list logo
