linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/coco, x86/sev: Use cpu_feature

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20231205151437.aqmuydosfmnq3zr4@box.shutemov.name>
Date:   Tue, 5 Dec 2023 18:14:37 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/coco, x86/sev: Use cpu_feature_enabled() to detect
 SEV guest flavor

On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 04:06:48PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 06:00:12PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > I don't think cc_platform_has() is the right check. On TDX side we use
> > X86_FEATURE_TDX_GUEST for this and it works better than stretching
> > CC_ATTRs beyond their meaning.
> 
> You don't think it is the right check because you do something else on
> Intel?
> 
> I can't follow that argument.

My point is that if you need to check for SEV you need to check SEV, not
CC_ATTR. CC_ATTRs only make sense in generic code that deals with multiple
CoCo environments.

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov