linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 27/32] x86/tdx: Exclude Shared bit from __PHYSICAL

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b27a6d31-8fd9-e650-0adf-5f7a8fc96a1c@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 May 2021 12:42:08 -0700
From:   "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        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 27/32] x86/tdx: Exclude Shared bit from __PHYSICAL_MASK



On 5/20/21 12:33 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> Initially we have used tdx_* prefix for the guest code. But when the code from
>> host side got merged together, we came across many name conflicts.
> Whatever the conflicts are, they are by no means an unsolvable problem.  I am
> more than happy to end up with slightly verbose names in KVM if that's what it
> takes to avoid "tdg".
> 
>> So to avoid such issues in future, we were asked not to use the "tdx_" prefix
>> and our alternative choice was "tdg_".
> Who asked you not to use tdx_?  More specifically, did that feedback come from a
> maintainer (or anyone on-list), or was it an Intel-internal decision?

It is the Intel internal feedback.

> 
>> Also, IMO, "tdg" prefix is more meaningful for guest code (Trusted Domain Guest)
>> compared to "tdx" (Trusted Domain eXtensions). I know that it gets confusing
>> when grepping for TDX related changes. But since these functions are only used
>> inside arch/x86 it should not be too confusing.
>>
>> Even if rename is requested, IMO, it is easier to do it in one patch over
>> making changes in all the patches. So if it is required, we can do it later
>> once these initial patches were merged.
> Hell no, we are not merging known bad crud that requires useless churn to get
> things right.

So what is your proposal? "tdx_guest_" / "tdx_host_" ?

If there is supposed be a rename, lets wait till we know about maintainers
feedback as well. If possible I would prefer not to go through another
rename.

-- 
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer