[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230411142528.GAZDVt2M8cNB7Ebcrn@fat_crate.local>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 16:25:28 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/15] x86/mtrr: support setting MTRR state for
software defined MTRRs
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 01:59:36PM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> That's doesn't work. Hyper-V guests with vTOM don't have
> CC_ATTR_GUEST_SEV_SNP. As previously discussed, the SEV-SNP
> machinery is handled by the paravisor,
Do you see now why I want for all kinds of guest types to not deviate
from doing the proper/default checks for their type? This is a good
example, case-in-point.
All "special" guests would get broken in the future, otherwise.
> I really wanted to avoid calls to hv_is_isolation_supported() outside
> of Hyper-V specific code in the kernel. The alternative is to create
> another CC_ATTR_ value that is set in the vTOM case, but that reopens
> the naming can-of-worms.
Now is the time for you to settle on what would be the official way to
query those guest types, before it propagates everywhere.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists