[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <64dab7a322eef_2138e29421@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 16:24:19 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Dionna Amalie Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
CC: <linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
<x86@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] virt: sevguest: Prep for kernel internal {get,
get_ext}_report()
Dionna Amalie Glaze wrote:
> >
> > switch (ioctl) {
> > case SNP_GET_REPORT:
> > - ret = get_report(snp_dev, &input);
> > + ret = get_report(snp_dev, &input, SNP_UARG);
> > break;
> > case SNP_GET_DERIVED_KEY:
> > ret = get_derived_key(snp_dev, &input);
> > break;
>
> Do we have an agreement around the continued existence of sev-guest
> for supporting derived keys, is that similarly slated for the chopping
> block, or is it left undecided?
> It appears your choice to not include the uarg/karg extension here is
> deliberate.
I do want to understand the argument from James a bit more, but the
exlcusion here was simply because there is currently no support for this
concept from other vendors.
That said, if it remains a vendor unique concept and continues getting
suspicious looks from folks like James, it may indeed be something the
kernel wants to jettison.
> > case SNP_GET_EXT_REPORT:
> > - ret = get_ext_report(snp_dev, &input);
> > + ret = get_ext_report(snp_dev, &input, SNP_UARG);
> > break;
> > default:
> > break;
> >
>
> Reviewed-by: Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>
Thanks for all your help on this!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists