[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <25f39c78-276f-529e-a62a-5444f9a94d14@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 11:17:55 -0700
From: "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 26/32] x86/mm: Move force_dma_unencrypted() to common
code
On 5/13/21 10:49 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/13/21 9:40 AM, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
>>
>> +#define PROTECTED_GUEST_BITMAP_LEN 128
>> +
>> +/* Protected Guest vendor types */
>> +#define GUEST_TYPE_TDX (1)
>> +#define GUEST_TYPE_SEV (2)
>> +
>> +/* Protected Guest features */
>> +#define MEMORY_ENCRYPTION (20)
>
> I was assuming we'd reuse the X86_FEATURE infrastructure somehow. Is
> there a good reason not to?
My assumption is, protected guest abstraction can be also used by
non-x86 arch's in future. So I have tried to keep these definitions
in common code.
>
> That gives us all the compile-time optimization (via
> en/disabled-features.h) and static branches for "free".
>
--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists