[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YMDX3Ly91OQUxEge@zn.tnic>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 17:01:48 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.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,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2-fix-v2 1/1] x86: Introduce generic protected guest
abstraction
On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 07:56:14AM -0700, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> And any arch which wants to support prot_guest_has() can enable above
> config option and create their own asm/protected_guest.
I wouldnt've done even that but only the x86 asm version of
protected_guest.h and left it to other arches to extend it. I don't
like "preempting" use of functionality by other arches and would
leave them to extend stuff themselves, as they see fit, but ok,
ARCH_HAS_PROTECTED_GUEST sounds clean enough to me too, so sure, that's
fine too.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists