[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3eef1d45-eafc-582e-8896-6aaf741d6726@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 09:55:27 -0600
From: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: brijesh.singh@....com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Sergio Lopez <slp@...hat.com>, Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dov Murik <dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com>,
Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@....com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
tony.luck@...el.com, marcorr@...gle.com,
sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 27/40] x86/boot: Add Confidential Computing type to
setup_data
On 12/13/21 9:08 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 12/13/21 6:49 AM, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>>> I was more concerned that this structure could change sizes if it were
>>> compiled on 32-bit versus 64-bit code. For kernel ABIs, we try not to
>>> do that.
>>>
>>> Is this somehow OK when talking to firmware? Or can a 32-bit OS and
>>> 64-bit firmware never interact?
>>
>> For SNP, both the firmware and OS need to be 64-bit. IIRC, both the
>> Linux and OVMF do not enable the memory encryption for the 32-bit.
>
> Could you please make the structure's size invariant?
Ack. I will make the required changes.
That's great if
> there's no problem in today's implementation, but it's best no to leave
> little land mines like this around. Let's say someone copies your code
> as an example of something that interacts with a firmware table a few
> years or months down the road.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists