[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YLfOYvv89X+wCLJv@zn.tnic>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 20:30:58 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Cc: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...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>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2-fix-v2 1/1] x86: Introduce generic protected guest
abstraction
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:19:07PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> This certainly doesn't capture all of the situations where true would need
> to be returned. For example, SEV, but not SEV-ES, requires that string I/O
> be unrolled, etc.
Yeah, I believe this would be better done for you guys, ontop, as you
know best what needs to be queried where. So this first patch adding
only a stub should be fine. Or you or someone else does the conversion
ontop of the Intel patch and then all patches go together.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists