On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 09:46:58AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> I'm ok with letting the TDX folks make changes to these calls to be SME or
> SEV specific, if necessary, later.
Yap, exactly. Let's add the specific stuff only when really needed.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
On 8/17/21 4:00 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:59:24AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c b/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c
>> index edc67ddf065d..5635ca9a1fbe 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c
>> @@
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:59:24AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c b/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c
> index edc67ddf065d..5635ca9a1fbe 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c
> @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ void __init sme_unmap_bootdata(char
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
