[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240531124829.GDZlnHHZnj-oByMTIK@fat_crate.local>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 14:48:29 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, svsm-devel@...onut-svsm.dev,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/15] x86/sev: Provide SVSM discovery support
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 03:57:10PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> The alternative method is really meant for things like UEFI runtime services
> (which uses the kernels #VC handler), not the kernel directly.
>
> Some of those checks have to be made very early, I'll see if it is feasible
> to rely on the CPUID check / cpu_feature_enabled() support.
Put that in the commit message.
> We can separate out SVSM vs VMPL, but if the kernel isn't running at VMPL0
> then it requires that an SVSM be present.
Ok, I guess the two things are identical.
> I'll incorporate this, but probably won't change the way exit_info_1 is
> assigned.
Oh, but we love our '!!' construct:
git grep -E '\s!![^!]' *.[ch] | wc -l
7776
At least so many, my pattern is not precise.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists