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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <20220210130545.69cfffc8f9ced7d215141a17@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Feb 2022 13:05:45 +1300
From:   Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        "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, tony.luck@...el.com,
        vkuznets@...hat.com, wanpengli@...cent.com, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 00/29] TDX Guest: TDX core support


> > No objection to omitting "coco".  Though what about using "vmx" and "svm" instead
> > of "tdx" and "sev".
> 
> I'm not dead-set on this but ...
> 
> > We lose the more explicit tie to coco, but it would mirror the
> > sub-directories in arch/x86/kvm/
> 
> ... having them too close in naming to the non-coco stuff, might cause
> confusion when looking at:
> 
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> 
> vs
> 
> arch/x86/virt/vmx/vmx.c
> 
> Instead of having
> 
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> 
> and
> 
> arch/x86/virt/tdx/vmx.c
> 
> That second version differs just the right amount. :-)

Having vmx.c under tdx/ directory looks a little bit strange.

vmx.c seems more like "generic non-KVM host virtualization staff".

> 
> > and would avoid a mess in the scenario where tdx
> > or sev needs to share code with the non-coco side, e.g. I'm guessing TDX will need
> > to do VMXON.
> > 
> >   arch/x86/virt/vmx/
> >   	tdx.c
> > 	vmx.c
> > 
> >   arch/x86/virt/svm/
> >   	sev.c
> > 	sev-es.c
> > 	sev-snp.c
> >   	svm.c
> 
> That will probably be two files too: sev.c and svm.c
> 
> But let's see what the other folks think first...
> 

So if I catch you guys correctly, so far I am heading towards to:

	arch/x86/virt/vmx/
		tdx.c

("vmx/" can be changed if you guys prefers others later).

And I am targeting to use single tdx.c to hold ~2k LoC since looks like single
file is preferred.