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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 18 Oct 2021 15:04:03 -0700
From:   Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
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 10/18/21 2:59 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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.

For now I will remove the comment as you have suggested.

>
> 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 will check the patch list again and re-organize the patch set, If I
find any such changes.

>
>> 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.

Sorry, I will check the details correctly.

>
-- 
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer