linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/sev: Add defines for GHCB version 2 MSR protocol requests

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 23 Jun 2021 11:49:39 +0200
From:   Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>, hpa@...or.com,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Cfir Cohen <cfir@...gle.com>,
        Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Mike Stunes <mstunes@...are.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Martin Radev <martin.b.radev@...il.com>,
        Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
        linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/sev: Add defines for GHCB version 2 MSR protocol
 requests

On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 11:32:50AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Ok, so I took a critical look at this and it doesn't make sense to have
> a differently named define each time you need the [63:12] slice of
> GHCBData. So you can simply use GHCB_DATA(msr_value) instead, see below.
> 
> Complaints?

Looks good to me.