[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <696b8d42-8825-9df5-54a3-fa55f2d0f421@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 07:58:29 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Cc: ak@...ux.intel.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC Part2 PATCH 01/30] x86: Add the host SEV-SNP initialization
support
> +static int __init mem_encrypt_snp_init(void)
> +{
> + if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SEV_SNP))
> + return 1;
> +
> + if (rmptable_init()) {
> + setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_SEV_SNP);
> + return 1;
> + }
> +
> + static_branch_enable(&snp_enable_key);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
Could you explain a bit why 'snp_enable_key' is needed in addition to
X86_FEATURE_SEV_SNP?
For a lot of features, we just use cpu_feature_enabled(), which does
both compile-time and static_cpu_has(). This whole series seems to lack
compile-time disables for the code that it adds, like the code it adds
to arch/x86/mm/fault.c or even mm/memory.c.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists