[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e63c166f-fd56-4aba-3d4f-b2d10051769a@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2021 15:08:53 -0700
From: "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
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,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] x86/sev: Replace occurrences of sev_es_active()
with prot_guest_has()
On 8/9/21 2:59 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> Not sure how TDX will handle AP booting, are you sure it needs this
>> special setup as well? Otherwise a check for SEV-ES would be better
>> instead of the generic PATTR_GUEST_PROT_STATE.
> Yes, I'm not sure either. I figure that change can be made, if needed, as
> part of the TDX support.
We don't plan to set PROT_STATE. So it does not affect TDX.
For SMP, we use MADT ACPI table for AP booting.
--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists