linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3.1 2/32] x86/coco: Explicitly declare type of confidential computing platform

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]

Date:   Mon, 21 Feb 2022 13:05:27 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>, aarcange@...hat.com,
        ak@...ux.intel.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        dave.hansen@...el.com, david@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
        jgross@...e.com, jmattson@...gle.com, joro@...tes.org,
        jpoimboe@...hat.com, knsathya@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, luto@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        pbonzini@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com, sdeep@...are.com,
        seanjc@...gle.com, tglx@...utronix.de, tony.luck@...el.com,
        vkuznets@...hat.com, wanpengli@...cent.com, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3.1 2/32] x86/coco: Explicitly declare type of
 confidential computing platform

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 02:44:51PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Hm. Isn't 'vendor' too generic? It may lead to name conflict in the
> future.

It's a static variable visible only in this unit.

> What is wrong with cc_vendor here? I noticed that you don't like name of
> a variable to match type name. Why?

Because when I look at the name I don't know whether it is the type or a
variable of that type. Sure, sure, it depends on the context but let's
make it as non-ambiguous as possible.

> Currently cc_platform_has() relies on hv_is_isolation_supported() which
> checks for !HV_ISOLATION_TYPE_NONE. This is direct transfer to the new
> scheme. It might be wrong, but it is not regression.

I didn't say it is a regression - I'm just wondering why.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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