[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YKbDtt2K4Z5gtYRc@google.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 20:16:54 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.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 Thu, May 20, 2021, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> So what is your proposal? "tdx_guest_" / "tdx_host_" ?
1. Abstract things where appropriate, e.g. I'm guessing there is a clever way
to deal with the shared vs. private inversion and avoid tdg_shared_mask
altogether.
2. Steal what SEV-ES did for the #VC handlers and use ve_ as the prefix for
handlers.
3. Use tdx_ everywhere else and handle the conflicts on a case-by-case basis
with a healthy dose of common sense. E.g. there should be no need to worry
about "static __cpuidle void tdg_safe_halt(void)" colliding because neither
the guest nor KVM should be exposing tdx_safe_halt() outside of its
compilation unit.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists