[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YLqmGzgXo0jFRhpw@zn.tnic>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2021 00:15:55 +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
abstractionn
On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 05:01:31PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> The first is analogous to sme_active(), the second to sev_active() and the
> third to mem_encrypt_active(). Just my opinion, though...
Yeah, or cc_has() where "cc" means "confidential computing". Or "coco"...
Yeah, no good idea yet.
> I don't think you want a WARN_ON_ONCE() here. The code will be written to
> work with either SEV or TDX, so we shouldn't warn on a check for a TDX
> supported feature when running on AMD (or vice-versa).
That's an AMD-specific path so it would warn only when a flag is used
which is unknown/unused yet on AMD.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists