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]

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.