[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220216154809.w27bt6oi3ql4ssip@black.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 18:48:09 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.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
On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 09:36:57PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> + SEV guys. You can scroll upthread to read up on the context.
>
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 08:07:52PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Don't forget :-)
> >
> > arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c - KVM guest stuff
>
> I knew I'd miss something, ofc.
>
> > 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. :-)
>
> > 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, any conclusion?
I want to understand where to land TDX guest code and host-guest shared TDX code.
Host-guest shared code doesn't seem to fit anywhere nicely.
Or should I leave it under arch/x86/kernel until decision is made?
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists