[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <72205a7a-faf2-4322-02cd-303ee8252abb@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 07:24:43 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] platform/x86: intel_tdx_attest: Add TDX Guest
attestation interface driver
On 4/19/22 07:19, Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy wrote:
> On 4/19/22 7:13 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> >From this perspective, I am not sure what's the value of having a
>>> dedicated
>>> INTEL_TDX_ATTESTATION Kconfig. The attestation support code should
>>> be turned on
>>> unconditionally when CONFIG_INTEL_TDX_GUEST is on. The code can also
>>> be just
>>> under arch/x86/coco/tdx/ I guess?
>> How much code are we talking about? What's the difference in the size
>> of the binaries with this compiled in?
>
> Current driver size is ~300 lines. It adds ~500 bytes to the kernel
> binary if it is built-in.
That doesn't sound like good use of a Kconfig option to me. Just
explain in the cover letter:
Any distribution enabling TDX is also expected to need
attestation. The compiled size is quite small (500 bytes).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists