linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm: Introduce a function to check for virtualization protection features

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]

Message-ID: <YQFY5/cq2thyHzUe@infradead.org>
Date:   Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:17:27 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-graphics-maintainer@...are.com,
        amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm: Introduce a function to check for
 virtualization protection features

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 05:26:04PM -0500, Tom Lendacky via iommu wrote:
> In prep for other protected virtualization technologies, introduce a
> generic helper function, prot_guest_has(), that can be used to check
> for specific protection attributes, like memory encryption. This is
> intended to eliminate having to add multiple technology-specific checks
> to the code (e.g. if (sev_active() || tdx_active())).

So common checks obviously make sense, but I really hate the stupid
multiplexer.  Having one well-documented helper per feature is much
easier to follow.

> +#define PATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT		0	/* Encrypted memory */
> +#define PATTR_HOST_MEM_ENCRYPT		1	/* Host encrypted memory */
> +#define PATTR_GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT		2	/* Guest encrypted memory */
> +#define PATTR_GUEST_PROT_STATE		3	/* Guest encrypted state */

The kerneldoc comments on these individual helpers will give you plenty
of space to properly document what they indicate and what a (potential)
caller should do based on them.  Something the above comments completely
fail to.