[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YzsnB0Evh5NeRzOh@zn.tnic>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2022 20:16:47 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>
Cc: "Kalra, Ashish" <Ashish.Kalra@....com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev" <linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"jroedel@...e.de" <jroedel@...e.de>,
"Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"ardb@...nel.org" <ardb@...nel.org>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"vkuznets@...hat.com" <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
"jmattson@...gle.com" <jmattson@...gle.com>,
"luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"slp@...hat.com" <slp@...hat.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com"
<srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
"rientjes@...gle.com" <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com" <dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com>,
"tobin@....com" <tobin@....com>,
"Roth, Michael" <Michael.Roth@....com>,
"vbabka@...e.cz" <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"kirill@...temov.name" <kirill@...temov.name>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"marcorr@...gle.com" <marcorr@...gle.com>,
"sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
"alpergun@...gle.com" <alpergun@...gle.com>,
"dgilbert@...hat.com" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
"jarkko@...nel.org" <jarkko@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH Part2 v6 13/49] crypto:ccp: Provide APIs to issue SEV-SNP
commands
On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 12:01:19PM -0600, Peter Gonda wrote:
> We already have sev_issue_cmd_external_user() exported right?
>
> Another option could be to make these wrappers more helpful and less
> silly.
For example.
My point is, whenever something needs to issue a SEV* fw command,
something adds a silly wrapper and this will become unwieldy pretty
quickly.
If a wrapper is not a dumb one but it actually does preparatory work
before issuing the command so that the caller's life is made easy, then
yes, by all means.
If it is only plain forwarding a call to sev_do_cmd(), then I question
the whole point of the exercise...
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists