linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 03/11] x86/cpufeatures: Add TDX Guest CPU feature

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YW3uTfHbooni2iVE@zn.tnic>
Date:   Mon, 18 Oct 2021 23:59:41 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, Deep Shah <sdeep@...are.com>,
        VMware Inc <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Peter H Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.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>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 03/11] x86/cpufeatures: Add TDX Guest CPU feature

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 02:05:10PM -0700, Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy wrote:
> Any consensus on this?

Well, you can simply not put any comment there now because this patchset
doesn't add those debug options.

The patch which adds them, should add that comment explaining why that
order needs to be the way it is.

In general, I get the impression from review that you add stuff for
future patchsets which only confuses reviewers and instead, you should
simply not do that but do only the required changes, only for the
current aspect of functionality being added.

> I think SME code also talks about future use case in its comment.

No, this has nothing to do with a future use case: you should look at
what that function does and then read that comment again.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette