[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1b2eb485-2320-b33b-a0ac-53f7cb170adc@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 11:18:24 -0700
From: "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
<dm-devel@...hat.com>, <gmazyland@...il.com>, <luto@...nel.org>,
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <tglx@...utronix.de>, <bp@...e.de>,
<mingo@...nel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
<herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, <ardb@...nel.org>,
<dan.j.williams@...el.com>, <bernie.keany@...el.com>,
<charishma1.gairuboyina@...el.com>,
<lalithambika.krishnakumar@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 07/12] x86/cpu/keylocker: Load an internal wrapping key
at boot-time
On 5/5/2023 4:05 PM, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 03:59:31PM -0700, Chang S. Bae wrote:
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_KEYLOCKER
>> +void setup_keylocker(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c);
>> +void destroy_keylocker_data(void);
>> +#else
>> +#define setup_keylocker(c) do { } while (0)
>> +#define destroy_keylocker_data() do { } while (0)
>> +#endif
>
> Shouldn't the !CONFIG_X86_KEYLOCKER stubs be static inline functions instead of
> macros, so that type checking works?
I think either way works here. This macro is just for nothing.
Thanks,
Chang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists