[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200604153021.GC2246@zn.tnic>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 17:30:27 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Cfir Cohen <cfir@...gle.com>,
Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Mike Stunes <mstunes@...are.com>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 42/75] x86/sev-es: Setup GHCB based boot #VC handler
On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 02:07:49PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> This are IDT entry points and the names above follow the convention for
> them, like e.g. 'page_fault', 'nmi' or 'general_protection'. Should I
> still add the verbs or just add a comment explaining what those symbols
> are?
Hmmkay, I see vc_no_ghcb doing
call do_vc_no_ghcb
and that's setup in early_idt_setup().
vc_boot_ghcb(), OTOH, is called by do_early_exception() only so that one
could be called handle_vc_boot_ghcb(), no? I.e., I don't see it being an
IDT entry point.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists