[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ebd50589-2cc3-6b6e-37ec-5bc968c40fe3@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 11:25:43 -0700
From: "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2-fix-v2 1/1] x86: Introduce generic protected guest
abstraction
On 6/2/21 11:15 AM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> The original suggestion from Boris, IIRC, was for protected_guest_has()
> function (below) to be:
>
> if (intel)
> return intel_protected_guest_has();
Yes. But for Intel, I think currently we can only check for is_tdx_guest() here.
if (is_tdx_guest())
return intel_protected_guest_has();
So if we use is_tdx_guest(), it is better to call tdx_protected_guest_has() here.
Once we start using protected_guest_has for other Intel technologies, may be
we can generalize it. Let me know your comments.
> else if (amd)
> return amd_protected_guest_has();
> else
> return false;
>
> And then you could check for TDX or SME/SEV in the respective functions.
--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists