[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YeAZXgW6G/0aVlXn@zn.tnic>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:21:50 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, 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,
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>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
"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 20/40] x86/sev: Use SEV-SNP AP creation to start
secondary CPUs
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:33:40AM -0600, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> Yes, the SEV-SNP feature is required. Anyway, I will improve a check. We
> will reach to AP creation only after SEV-SNP feature is checked, so, in AP
> creation routine we just need to check for the AP_CREATION specific feature
> flag; I will add comment about it.
Right, at least a comment explaining why the bits are ORed.
>
> > You can still enforce that requirement in the test though.
> >
> > Or all those SEV features should not be bits but masks -
> > GHCB_HV_FT_SNP_AP_CREATION_MASK for example, seeing how the others
> > require the previous bits to be set too.
Thinking about this more, calling it a "mask" might not be optimal here
as you use masks usually to, well, mask out bits, etc. So I guess a
comment explaning why the OR-in of bit 0...
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists