[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c25b334a-3c01-2af4-6374-883c19e3837a@linux.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2021 11:12:57 -0700
From: "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
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
Subject: Re: [RFC v2-fix-v2 1/1] x86: Introduce generic protected guest
abstractionn
On 6/5/21 4:03 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Aha,*now*, I see what you mean. Ok, so the reason why I added the
> WARN is to sanity-check whether we're handling all possible VM_* or
> PROT_GUEST_* flags properly and whether we're missing some. As a
> debugging help. It'll get removed before applying I guess.
Borislav/Tom,
Any consensus on function name and flag prefix?
Currently suggested function names are,
cc_has() or protected_guest_has() or prot_guest_has() or protected_boot_has()
For flag prefix either PR_GUEST_* or CC_*
I am planning to submit another version of this patch with suggested fixes.
If we could reach some consensus on function and flag names, I can include
them in it. If not, I will submit next version without any renames.
Please let me know your comments.
BTW, my choice is protected_guest_has() or CC_has().
--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists