RE: Compiling makedumpfile from source

-Original Message- > Hi kazuhito san, > > Just following up on my last email. > Sincere apologies for asking for your time. > I want to specifically understand what the "user data" section is and > what it means to exclude it from the dump. "user data" are anonymous pages or huge pages.

Re: [PATCH 00/11] Implement generic prot_guest_has() helper function

On 7/27/21 5:26 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote: > This patch series provides a generic helper function, prot_guest_has(), > to replace the sme_active(), sev_active(), sev_es_active() and > mem_encrypt_active() functions. > > It is expected that as new protected virtualization technologies are > added to

[PATCH 10/11] powerpc/pseries/svm: Remove the now unused mem_encrypt_active() function

The mem_encrypt_active() function has been replaced by prot_guest_has(), so remove the implementation. Cc: Michael Ellerman Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Paul Mackerras Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky --- arch/powerpc/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h | 5 - 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-) diff

[PATCH 09/11] x86/sev: Remove the now unused mem_encrypt_active() function

The mem_encrypt_active() function has been replaced by prot_guest_has(), so remove the implementation. Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Ingo Molnar Cc: Borislav Petkov Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky --- arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h | 5 - 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-) diff --git

[PATCH 08/11] mm: Remove the now unused mem_encrypt_active() function

The mem_encrypt_active() function has been replaced by prot_guest_has(), so remove the implementation. Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky --- include/linux/mem_encrypt.h | 4 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/mem_encrypt.h b/include/linux/mem_encrypt.h index

[PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has()

Replace occurrences of mem_encrypt_active() with calls to prot_guest_has() with the PATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT attribute. Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Ingo Molnar Cc: Borislav Petkov Cc: Dave Hansen Cc: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: David Airlie Cc: Daniel Vetter Cc: Maarten Lankhorst Cc:

[PATCH 06/11] x86/sev: Replace occurrences of sev_es_active() with prot_guest_has()

Replace occurrences of sev_es_active() with the more generic prot_guest_has() using PATTR_GUEST_PROT_STATE, except for in arch/x86/kernel/sev*.c and arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt*.c where PATTR_SEV_ES will be used. If future support is added for other memory encyrption techonologies, the use of

[PATCH 05/11] x86/sev: Replace occurrences of sev_active() with prot_guest_has()

Replace occurrences of sev_active() with the more generic prot_guest_has() using PATTR_GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT, except for in arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt*.c where PATTR_SEV will be used. If future support is added for other memory encryption technologies, the use of PATTR_GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT can be updated,

[PATCH 04/11] x86/sme: Replace occurrences of sme_active() with prot_guest_has()

Replace occurrences of sme_active() with the more generic prot_guest_has() using PATTR_HOST_MEM_ENCRYPT, except for in arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt*.c where PATTR_SME will be used. If future support is added for other memory encryption technologies, the use of PATTR_HOST_MEM_ENCRYPT can be updated, as

[PATCH 11/11] s390/mm: Remove the now unused mem_encrypt_active() function

The mem_encrypt_active() function has been replaced by prot_guest_has(), so remove the implementation. Since the default implementation of the prot_guest_has() matches the s390 implementation of mem_encrypt_active(), prot_guest_has() does not need to be implemented in s390 (the config option

[PATCH 03/11] powerpc/pseries/svm: Add a powerpc version of prot_guest_has()

Introduce a powerpc version of the prot_guest_has() function. This will be used to replace the powerpc mem_encrypt_active() implementation, so the implementation will initially only support the PATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT attribute. Cc: Michael Ellerman Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Paul Mackerras

[PATCH 02/11] x86/sev: Add an x86 version of prot_guest_has()

Introduce an x86 version of the prot_guest_has() function. This will be used in the more generic x86 code to replace vendor specific calls like sev_active(), etc. While the name suggests this is intended mainly for guests, it will also be used for host memory encryption checks in place of

[PATCH 01/11] mm: Introduce a function to check for virtualization protection features

In prep for other protected virtualization technologies, introduce a generic helper function, prot_guest_has(), that can be used to check for specific protection attributes, like memory encryption. This is intended to eliminate having to add multiple technology-specific checks to the code (e.g. if

[PATCH 00/11] Implement generic prot_guest_has() helper function

This patch series provides a generic helper function, prot_guest_has(), to replace the sme_active(), sev_active(), sev_es_active() and mem_encrypt_active() functions. It is expected that as new protected virtualization technologies are added to the kernel, they can all be covered by a single

Re: [PATCH printk v4 0/6] printk: remove safe buffers

On Thu 2021-07-15 21:39:53, John Ogness wrote: > Hi, > > Here is v4 of a series to remove the safe buffers. v3 can be > found here [0]. The safe buffers are no longer needed because > messages can be stored directly into the log buffer from any > context. > > However, the safe buffers also

Re: Compiling makedumpfile from source

Hi kazuhito san, Just following up on my last email. Sincere apologies for asking for your time. I want to specifically understand what the "user data" section is and what it means to exclude it from the dump. Thank you very much. Best Regards, Manty On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 10:45 AM manty kuma