Right now the only way to check this is by greping the kernel logs,
which is inconvinient. This is currently checked for fwupd for
example.

I understand that cpuinfo is supposed to report every feature in the
cpu but since AMD is doing the same for sme/sev I think is good to
have this for Intel too.

Signed-off-by: Martin Fernandez <martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
index fd5dead8371c..7311172aceaf 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
@@ -570,6 +570,8 @@ static void detect_tme(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)

 	if (!TME_ACTIVATE_LOCKED(tme_activate) || !TME_ACTIVATE_ENABLED(tme_activate)) {
 		pr_info_once("x86/tme: not enabled by BIOS\n");
+		if (mktme_status == MKTME_UNINITIALIZED)
+			clear_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_TME);
 		mktme_status = MKTME_DISABLED;
 		return;
 	}
--
2.30.2

On 7/4/22, Martin Fernandez <martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com> wrote:
> Right now the only way to check this is by greping the kernel logs,
> which is inconvinient. This is currently checked for fwupd for
> example.
>
> I understand that cpuinfo is supposed to report every feature in the
> cpu but since AMD is doing the same for sme/sev I think is good to
> have this for Intel too.
>
> Signed-off-by: Martin Fernandez <martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
> index fd5dead8371c..7311172aceaf 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
> @@ -570,6 +570,8 @@ static void detect_tme(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>
>  	if (!TME_ACTIVATE_LOCKED(tme_activate) ||
> !TME_ACTIVATE_ENABLED(tme_activate)) {
>  		pr_info_once("x86/tme: not enabled by BIOS\n");
> +		if (mktme_status == MKTME_UNINITIALIZED)
> +			clear_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_TME);
>  		mktme_status = MKTME_DISABLED;
>  		return;
>  	}
> --
> 2.30.2
>
>

I'm sorry, disregard this patch. I wrongly sent an old one. My apologies.