linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 00/29] TDX Guest: TDX core support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 9 Feb 2022 12:40:17 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...el.com,
        luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
        ak@...ux.intel.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com, david@...hat.com,
        hpa@...or.com, jgross@...e.com, jmattson@...gle.com,
        joro@...tes.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com, knsathya@...nel.org,
        pbonzini@...hat.com, sdeep@...are.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
        tony.luck@...el.com, vkuznets@...hat.com, wanpengli@...cent.com,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 00/29] TDX Guest: TDX core support

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 12:30:33AM +1300, Kai Huang wrote:
> Because SEAM, P-SEAMLDR can logically be independent, so I feel it's better to
> have separate C files for them.

Most of those look like small files. I don't see the point of having it
all in separate files - you can just as well put them in tdx.c and carve
out only then when the file becomes too unwieldy to handle.

> Thanks for the information.  However, for now does it make sense to also put
> TDX host files under arch/x86/kernel/, or maybe arch/x86/kernel/tdx_host/?

Didn't you just read what I wrote about "kernel"?

> As suggested by Thomas, host SEAMCALL can share TDX guest's __tdx_module_call()
> implementation.  Kirill will have a arch/x86/kernel/tdxcall.S which implements
> the core body of __tdx_module_call() and is supposed to be included by the new
> assembly file to implement the host SEAMCALL function.  From this perspective,
> it seems more reasonable to just put all TDX host files under arch/x86/kernel/?

It would be a lot harder to move them to a different location later,
when they're upstream already. I'm talking from past experience here.

But let's see what the others think first.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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