[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9c576f24-e6de-f816-623d-408a4a2ae747@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 15:03:30 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter H Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/12] x86/tdx: Add protected guest support for TDX
guest
On 8/4/21 2:59 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> +#include <asm/processor.h>
>> +#include <asm/tdx.h>
>> +
>> #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>>
>> static inline bool prot_guest_has(unsigned int attr)
>> {
>> if (sme_me_mask)
>> return amd_prot_guest_has(attr);
>> + else if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
> Why not "boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TDX_GUEST)"?
Even better: cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_TDX_GUEST). That gets you
both static patching *and* compile-time optimization if you hook
X86_FEATURE_TDX_GUEST into disabled-features.h.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists