[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <64cdda1725a8e_2138e2947d@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2023 22:11:51 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
CC: <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
Dionna Amalie Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...osinc.com>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
<linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>, <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
<x86@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] keys: Introduce tsm keys
Peter Gonda wrote:
[..]
> OK the overhead is negligible. But why is this any better?
I need to answer this directly. This is better because vendorA is forced
to collaborate with vendorB about instantiation options. No more "stick
new feature that might be duplicative in a siloed driver in
drivers/virt/coco/$vendor". This is better for the kernel.
Once standardization materialized this is already ahead of the game
providing a front end to instantiate that common format. This interface
choice forces ongoing community collaboration on how options are
presented. It takes a position that all existing options that sevguest
already exports are in scope and provides a place to have a discussion
about how and when to add more options. This is better for
collaboration.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists