[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0db0402c-390f-2c5b-8fdc-36462b49e029@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 11:54:50 -0700
From: "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: 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,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2-fix-v2 1/1] x86: Introduce generic protected guest
abstraction
On 6/3/21 11:41 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> Since you are checking for AMD vendor ID, why not use amd_protected_guest_has()?
> Because, as Sean already told you, we should either stick to the
> technologies: TDX or SEV or to the vendors: Intel or AMD - but not
> either or.
Ok. We can go with technologies for now. In future, if protected_guest_has() is extended
for other technologies like MKTME, then we can generalize it base on vendor.
--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists