[PATCH] treewide: Rename "unencrypted" to "decrypted"

[Borislav Petkov]

Hi all,

this hasn't been fully tested yet but it is mechanical rename only so
there shouldn't be any problems (famous last words :-)).

I'll run it through the randconfig bench today and take it through tip if
there are no objections.

Thx.

---

Back then when the whole SME machinery started getting mainlined, it
was agreed that for simplicity, clarity and sanity's sake, the terms
denoting encrypted and not-encrypted memory should be "encrypted" and
"decrypted". And the majority of the code sticks to that convention
except those two. So rename them.

No functional changes.

Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <***@suse.de>
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/Kconfig | 2 +-
arch/s390/Kconfig | 2 +-
arch/x86/Kconfig | 2 +-
arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c | 4 ++--
include/linux/dma-direct.h | 8 ++++----
kernel/dma/Kconfig | 2 +-
kernel/dma/direct.c | 14 +++++++-------
kernel/dma/mapping.c | 2 +-
8 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/Kconfig
index 24c18362e5ea..a78e2c3e1d92 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/Kconfig
@@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ config PPC_SVM
depends on PPC_PSERIES
select SWIOTLB
select ARCH_HAS_MEM_ENCRYPT
- select ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED
+ select ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_DECRYPTED
help
There are certain POWER platforms which support secure guests using
the Protected Execution Facility, with the help of an Ultravisor
diff --git a/arch/s390/Kconfig b/arch/s390/Kconfig
index 8abe77536d9d..ab1dbb7415b4 100644
--- a/arch/s390/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/s390/Kconfig
@@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ config S390
select VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING
select ARCH_HAS_SCALED_CPUTIME
select HAVE_NMI
- select ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED
+ select ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_DECRYPTED
select SWIOTLB
select GENERIC_ALLOCATOR

diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
index beea77046f9b..2ae904f505e1 100644
--- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
@@ -1525,7 +1525,7 @@ config AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT
depends on X86_64 && CPU_SUP_AMD
select DYNAMIC_PHYSICAL_MASK
select ARCH_USE_MEMREMAP_PROT
- select ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED
+ select ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_DECRYPTED
---help---
Say yes to enable support for the encryption of system memory.
This requires an AMD processor that supports Secure Memory
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c b/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c
index a03614bd3e1a..66d09f269e6d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c
@@ -350,8 +350,8 @@ bool sev_active(void)
return sme_me_mask && sev_enabled;
}

-/* Override for DMA direct allocation check - ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED */
-bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev)
+/* Override for DMA direct allocation check - ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_DECRYPTED */
+bool force_dma_decrypted(struct device *dev)
{
/*
* For SEV, all DMA must be to unencrypted addresses.
diff --git a/include/linux/dma-direct.h b/include/linux/dma-direct.h
index 24b8684aa21d..9f955844e9c7 100644
--- a/include/linux/dma-direct.h
+++ b/include/linux/dma-direct.h
@@ -26,14 +26,14 @@ static inline phys_addr_t __dma_to_phys(struct device *dev, dma_addr_t dev_addr)
}
#endif /* !CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PHYS_TO_DMA */

-#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED
-bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev);
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_DECRYPTED
+bool force_dma_decrypted(struct device *dev);
#else
-static inline bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev)
+static inline bool force_dma_decrypted(struct device *dev)
{
return false;
}
-#endif /* CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED */
+#endif /* CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_DECRYPTED */

/*
* If memory encryption is supported, phys_to_dma will set the memory encryption
diff --git a/kernel/dma/Kconfig b/kernel/dma/Kconfig
index 4c103a24e380..55c4147bb2b1 100644
--- a/kernel/dma/Kconfig
+++ b/kernel/dma/Kconfig
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ config ARCH_HAS_SYNC_DMA_FOR_CPU_ALL
config ARCH_HAS_DMA_PREP_COHERENT
bool

-config ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED
+config ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_DECRYPTED
bool

config DMA_NONCOHERENT_CACHE_SYNC
diff --git a/kernel/dma/direct.c b/kernel/dma/direct.c
index ac7956c38f69..a0576c0ccacd 100644
--- a/kernel/dma/direct.c
+++ b/kernel/dma/direct.c
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ unsigned int zone_dma_bits __ro_after_init = 24;
static inline dma_addr_t phys_to_dma_direct(struct device *dev,
phys_addr_t phys)
{
- if (force_dma_unencrypted(dev))
+ if (force_dma_decrypted(dev))
return __phys_to_dma(dev, phys);
return phys_to_dma(dev, phys);
}
@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static gfp_t __dma_direct_optimal_gfp_mask(struct device *dev, u64 dma_mask,
{
u64 dma_limit = min_not_zero(dma_mask, dev->bus_dma_limit);

- if (force_dma_unencrypted(dev))
+ if (force_dma_decrypted(dev))
*phys_limit = __dma_to_phys(dev, dma_limit);
else
*phys_limit = dma_to_phys(dev, dma_limit);
@@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ void *dma_direct_alloc_pages(struct device *dev, size_t size,
return NULL;

if ((attrs & DMA_ATTR_NO_KERNEL_MAPPING) &&
- !force_dma_unencrypted(dev)) {
+ !force_dma_decrypted(dev)) {
/* remove any dirty cache lines on the kernel alias */
if (!PageHighMem(page))
arch_dma_prep_coherent(page, size);
@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ void *dma_direct_alloc_pages(struct device *dev, size_t size,
}

ret = page_address(page);
- if (force_dma_unencrypted(dev))
+ if (force_dma_decrypted(dev))
set_memory_decrypted((unsigned long)ret, 1 << get_order(size));

memset(ret, 0, size);
@@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ void *dma_direct_alloc_pages(struct device *dev, size_t size,
ret = uncached_kernel_address(ret);
}
done:
- if (force_dma_unencrypted(dev))
+ if (force_dma_decrypted(dev))
*dma_handle = __phys_to_dma(dev, page_to_phys(page));
else
*dma_handle = phys_to_dma(dev, page_to_phys(page));
@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ void dma_direct_free_pages(struct device *dev, size_t size, void *cpu_addr,
unsigned int page_order = get_order(size);

if ((attrs & DMA_ATTR_NO_KERNEL_MAPPING) &&
- !force_dma_unencrypted(dev)) {
+ !force_dma_decrypted(dev)) {
/* cpu_addr is a struct page cookie, not a kernel address */
dma_free_contiguous(dev, cpu_addr, size);
return;
@@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ void dma_direct_free_pages(struct device *dev, size_t size, void *cpu_addr,
dma_free_from_pool(cpu_addr, PAGE_ALIGN(size)))
return;

- if (force_dma_unencrypted(dev))
+ if (force_dma_decrypted(dev))
set_memory_encrypted((unsigned long)cpu_addr, 1 << page_order);

if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMA_REMAP) && is_vmalloc_addr(cpu_addr))
diff --git a/kernel/dma/mapping.c b/kernel/dma/mapping.c
index 98e3d873792e..dbd0605a39c5 100644
--- a/kernel/dma/mapping.c
+++ b/kernel/dma/mapping.c
@@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_get_sgtable_attrs);
*/
pgprot_t dma_pgprot(struct device *dev, pgprot_t prot, unsigned long attrs)
{
- if (force_dma_unencrypted(dev))
+ if (force_dma_decrypted(dev))
prot = pgprot_decrypted(prot);
if (dev_is_dma_coherent(dev) ||
(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMA_NONCOHERENT_CACHE_SYNC) &&

[Dave Hansen]

Post by Borislav Petkov
Back then when the whole SME machinery started getting mainlined, it
was agreed that for simplicity, clarity and sanity's sake, the terms
denoting encrypted and not-encrypted memory should be "encrypted" and
"decrypted". And the majority of the code sticks to that convention
except those two. So rename them.

Don't "unencrypted" and "decrypted" mean different things?

Unencrypted to me means "encryption was never used for this data".

Decrypted means "this was/is encrypted but here is a plaintext copy".

Post by Borislav Petkov
+++ b/kernel/dma/direct.c
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ unsigned int zone_dma_bits __ro_after_init = 24;
static inline dma_addr_t phys_to_dma_direct(struct device *dev,
phys_addr_t phys)
{
- if (force_dma_unencrypted(dev))
+ if (force_dma_decrypted(dev))
return __phys_to_dma(dev, phys);

is referring to DMA that is not and never was encrypted. It's skipping
the encryption altogether. There's no act of "decryption" anywhere.

Post by Borislav Petkov
/*
* Macros to add or remove encryption attribute
*/
#define pgprot_encrypted(prot) __pgprot(__sme_set(pgprot_val(prot)))
#define pgprot_decrypted(prot) __pgprot(__sme_clr(pgprot_val(prot)))

This seems like it would be better named pgprot_unencrypted().

[Borislav Petkov]

Post by Dave Hansen

Post by Borislav Petkov
Back then when the whole SME machinery started getting mainlined, it
was agreed that for simplicity, clarity and sanity's sake, the terms
denoting encrypted and not-encrypted memory should be "encrypted" and
"decrypted". And the majority of the code sticks to that convention
except those two. So rename them.

Don't "unencrypted" and "decrypted" mean different things?
Unencrypted to me means "encryption was never used for this data".
Decrypted means "this was/is encrypted but here is a plaintext copy".

Maybe but linguistical semantics is not the point here.

The idea is to represent a "binary" concept of memory being encrypted
or memory being not encrypted. And at the time we decided to use
"encrypted" and "decrypted" for those two things.

Do you see the need to differentiate a third "state", so to speak, of
memory which was never encrypted?

[Dave Hansen]

Post by Borislav Petkov

Post by Dave Hansen

Post by Borislav Petkov
Back then when the whole SME machinery started getting mainlined, it
was agreed that for simplicity, clarity and sanity's sake, the terms
denoting encrypted and not-encrypted memory should be "encrypted" and
"decrypted". And the majority of the code sticks to that convention
except those two. So rename them.

Don't "unencrypted" and "decrypted" mean different things?
Unencrypted to me means "encryption was never used for this data".
Decrypted means "this was/is encrypted but here is a plaintext copy".

Maybe but linguistical semantics is not the point here.
The idea is to represent a "binary" concept of memory being encrypted
or memory being not encrypted. And at the time we decided to use
"encrypted" and "decrypted" for those two things.

Yeah, agreed. We're basically trying to name "!encrypted".

Post by Borislav Petkov
Do you see the need to differentiate a third "state", so to speak, of
memory which was never encrypted?

No, there are just two states. I just think the "!encrypted" case
should not be called "decrypted".

[Borislav Petkov]

Post by Dave Hansen
No, there are just two states. I just think the "!encrypted" case
should not be called "decrypted".

Yeah, we suck at naming - news at 11! :-)

I believe we even considered things like "encrypted" vs "clear" but
that sucked too. ;-\

In any case, that ship has sailed now and having two as differently as
possible looking words to denote the two "states" should be good enough
for our purposes...

Oh well.

[Joe Perches]

Post by Dave Hansen

Post by Borislav Petkov

Post by Dave Hansen

Post by Borislav Petkov
Back then when the whole SME machinery started getting mainlined, it
was agreed that for simplicity, clarity and sanity's sake, the terms
denoting encrypted and not-encrypted memory should be "encrypted" and
"decrypted". And the majority of the code sticks to that convention
except those two. So rename them.

Don't "unencrypted" and "decrypted" mean different things?
Unencrypted to me means "encryption was never used for this data".
Decrypted means "this was/is encrypted but here is a plaintext copy".

Maybe but linguistical semantics is not the point here.
The idea is to represent a "binary" concept of memory being encrypted
or memory being not encrypted. And at the time we decided to use
"encrypted" and "decrypted" for those two things.

Yeah, agreed. We're basically trying to name "!encrypted".

Post by Borislav Petkov
Do you see the need to differentiate a third "state", so to speak, of
memory which was never encrypted?

No, there are just two states. I just think the "!encrypted" case
should not be called "decrypted".

Nor do I, it's completely misleading.

[Thomas Gleixner]

Post by Borislav Petkov

Post by Dave Hansen

Post by Borislav Petkov
Back then when the whole SME machinery started getting mainlined, it
was agreed that for simplicity, clarity and sanity's sake, the terms
denoting encrypted and not-encrypted memory should be "encrypted" and
"decrypted". And the majority of the code sticks to that convention
except those two. So rename them.

Don't "unencrypted" and "decrypted" mean different things?
Unencrypted to me means "encryption was never used for this data".
Decrypted means "this was/is encrypted but here is a plaintext copy".

Maybe but linguistical semantics is not the point here.
The idea is to represent a "binary" concept of memory being encrypted
or memory being not encrypted. And at the time we decided to use
"encrypted" and "decrypted" for those two things.
Do you see the need to differentiate a third "state", so to speak, of
memory which was never encrypted?

I think so.

encrypted data is something you can't use without having the key

decrypted data is the plaintext copy of something encrypted, so
it might be of sensible nature.

unencrypted data can still be sensible, but nothing ever bothered to
encrypt it in the first place.

So having this distinction is useful in terms of setting the context
straight.

Thanks,

tglx

[kbuild test robot]

Hi Borislav,

I love your patch! Yet something to improve:

[auto build test ERROR on tip/x86/mm]
[cannot apply to linux/master powerpc/next s390/features tip/x86/core linus/master v5.6-rc6 next-20200317]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use '--base' option to specify the
base tree in git format-patch, please see https://stackoverflow.com/a/37406982]

url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Borislav-Petkov/treewide-Rename-unencrypted-to-decrypted/20200318-015738
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git 17c4a2ae15a7aaefe84bdb271952678c5c9cd8e1
config: s390-zfcpdump_defconfig (attached as .config)
compiler: s390-linux-gcc (GCC) 9.2.0
reproduce:
wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross
chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
# save the attached .config to linux build tree
GCC_VERSION=9.2.0 make.cross ARCH=s390

If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
Reported-by: kbuild test robot <***@intel.com>

All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):

s390-linux-ld: kernel/dma/mapping.o: in function `dma_pgprot':
mapping.c:(.text+0x144): undefined reference to `force_dma_decrypted'
s390-linux-ld: kernel/dma/mapping.o: in function `dma_common_mmap':
mapping.c:(.text+0x1a4): undefined reference to `force_dma_decrypted'
s390-linux-ld: kernel/dma/direct.o: in function `dma_direct_get_required_mask':
direct.c:(.text+0xae): undefined reference to `force_dma_decrypted'
s390-linux-ld: kernel/dma/direct.o: in function `__dma_direct_alloc_pages':
direct.c:(.text+0x152): undefined reference to `force_dma_decrypted'

s390-linux-ld: direct.c:(.text+0x1e8): undefined reference to `force_dma_decrypted'

s390-linux-ld: kernel/dma/direct.o:direct.c:(.text+0x2e0): more undefined references to `force_dma_decrypted' follow

---
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service, Intel Corporation
https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-***@lists.01.org

[kbuild test robot]

Hi Borislav,

I love your patch! Yet something to improve:

[auto build test ERROR on tip/x86/mm]
[cannot apply to linux/master powerpc/next s390/features tip/x86/core linus/master v5.6-rc6 next-20200317]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use '--base' option to specify the
base tree in git format-patch, please see https://stackoverflow.com/a/37406982]

url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Borislav-Petkov/treewide-Rename-unencrypted-to-decrypted/20200318-015738
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git 17c4a2ae15a7aaefe84bdb271952678c5c9cd8e1
config: powerpc-defconfig (attached as .config)
compiler: powerpc64-linux-gcc (GCC) 9.2.0
reproduce:
wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross
chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
# save the attached .config to linux build tree
GCC_VERSION=9.2.0 make.cross ARCH=powerpc

If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
Reported-by: kbuild test robot <***@intel.com>

All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):

powerpc64-linux-ld: warning: orphan section `.gnu.hash' from `linker stubs' being placed in section `.gnu.hash'

mapping.c:(.text+0xc5c): undefined reference to `.force_dma_decrypted'

powerpc64-linux-ld: kernel/dma/mapping.o: in function `.dma_common_mmap':
mapping.c:(.text+0xcfc): undefined reference to `.force_dma_decrypted'

direct.c:(.text+0x920): undefined reference to `.force_dma_decrypted'

powerpc64-linux-ld: kernel/dma/direct.o: in function `.__dma_direct_alloc_pages':
direct.c:(.text+0x9fc): undefined reference to `.force_dma_decrypted'

powerpc64-linux-ld: direct.c:(.text+0xaa8): undefined reference to `.force_dma_decrypted'

powerpc64-linux-ld: kernel/dma/direct.o:direct.c:(.text+0xb28): more undefined references to `.force_dma_decrypted' follow

---
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service, Intel Corporation
https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-***@lists.01.org