Re: [RFC PATCH v1 13/18] x86: DMA support for memory encryption

2016-04-29 Thread Tom Lendacky
On 04/29/2016 11:27 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:12:45AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote: >> On 04/29/2016 02:17 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:58:12PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote: Since DMA addresses will effectively look like 48-bit a

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 13/18] x86: DMA support for memory encryption

2016-04-29 Thread Tom Lendacky
On 04/29/2016 02:17 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:58:12PM -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 do

[RFC PATCH v1 13/18] x86: DMA support for memory encryption

2016-04-26 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