[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <37da11b3-0313-982d-5a2b-af592db6f9e8@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 15:32:01 -0700
From: "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"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>,
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 5/17/21 11:37 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> Just remember, a "common framework" doesn't mean that it can't be backed
>> by extremely arch-specific mechanisms.
>>
>> For instance, there's a lot of pkey-specific code in mm/mprotect.c. It
>> still gets optimized away on x86 with all the goodness of X86_FEATUREs.
> Ya, exactly. Ideally, generic code shouldn't have to differentiate between SEV,
> SEV-ES, SEV-SNP, TDX, etc..., a vanilla "bool is_protected_guest(void)" should
> suffice. Under the hood, x86's implementation for is_protected_guest() can be
> boot_cpu_has() checks (if we want).
What about the use case of protected_guest_has(flag)? Do you want to call it with
with X86_FEATURE_* flags outside arch/x86 code ?
--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists