[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8129ef50-467f-fe2e-c770-a32c690c5177@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 10:11:21 -0700
From: "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
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 8/20/21 9:59 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Err, why?
>
> TDX is Intel technology. That's like asking to have
>
> sev_prot_guest_has() and amd_prot_guest_has() on AMD.
>
> Maybe I still don't get what you're trying to achieve but from where I'm
> standing that sounds wrong.
My intention was to keep intel_* function clean and hide all TDX specific
customization in tdx_* function (within in tdx.c) and call it from
intel_* function (within cpu/intel.c).
But I understand your point as well. I am fine with moving TDX specific checks to
intel_* function.
--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists