Re: [RFC PATCH v2 14/20] x86: DMA support for memory encryption

2016-09-14 Thread Tom Lendacky
On 09/12/2016 05:58 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:38:07PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote: >> Since DMA addresses will effectively look like 48-bit addresses when the >> memory encryption mask is set, SWIOTLB is needed if the DMA mask of the >> device performing the DMA does not

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 14/20] x86: DMA support for memory encryption

2016-09-12 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:38:07PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote: > Since DMA addresses will effectively look like 48-bit addresses when the > memory encryption mask is set, SWIOTLB is needed if the DMA mask of the > device performing the DMA does not support 48-bits. SWIOTLB will be > initialized to c

[RFC PATCH v2 14/20] x86: DMA support for memory encryption

2016-08-22 Thread Tom Lendacky
Since DMA addresses will effectively look like 48-bit addresses when the memory encryption mask is set, SWIOTLB is needed if the DMA mask of the device performing the DMA does not support 48-bits. SWIOTLB will be initialized to create un-encrypted bounce buffers for use by these devices. Signed-of