linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] KVM: SVM: move sev_bind

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: <CAL715WL6g3P6QKv1w-zSDvY3jjLVdbfxaqyr2XV_NicnuP2+EQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Sep 2021 18:18:00 -0700
From:   Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com>
To:     Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        John Allen <john.allen@....com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alper Gun <alpergun@...gle.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        David Rienjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Marc Orr <marcorr@...gle.com>, Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>,
        Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] KVM: SVM: move sev_bind_asid to psp

> I believe once we are done with it, will have 5 functions that will need
>  >=8 arguments. I don't know if its acceptable.
>
> > In addition, having to construct each sev_data_* structure in KVM code
> > is also a pain and  consumes a lot of irrelevant lines as well.
> >
>
> Maybe I am missing something, aren't those lines will be moved from KVM
> to PSP driver?
>
> I am in full support for restructuring, but lets look at full set of PSP
> APIs before making the final decision.
>
> thanks
>

Oh, sorry for the confusion. I think the current feedback I got is
that my restructuring patchset was blocked due to the fact that it is
a partial one. So, if this patchset got checked in, then the psp-sev.h
will have two types of APIs: ones that use sev_data_* structure and
ones that do not. So one of the worries is that this would make the
situation even worse.

So that's why I am thinking that maybe it is fine to just avoid using
sev_data_* for all PSP functions exposed to KVM? I use the number of
arguments as the justification. But that might not be a good one.

In anycase, I will not rush into any code change before we reach a consensus.

Thanks.
-Mingwei