linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 01/14] x86/apic: Add new driver for Secure AVIC

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <sng54pb3ck25773jnajmnci3buczq4tnvuofht6rnqbfqpu77s@vucyk6py2wyf>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 13:10:58 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Neeraj Upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>, bp@...en8.de
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, 
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, Thomas.Lendacky@....com, nikunj@....com, Santosh.Shukla@....com, 
	Vasant.Hegde@....com, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com, David.Kaplan@....com, 
	x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, peterz@...radead.org, seanjc@...gle.com, 
	pbonzini@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 01/14] x86/apic: Add new driver for Secure AVIC

On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 05:06:52PM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/cc_platform.h b/include/linux/cc_platform.h
> index caa4b4430634..801208678450 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cc_platform.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cc_platform.h
> @@ -88,6 +88,14 @@ enum cc_attr {
>  	 * enabled to run SEV-SNP guests.
>  	 */
>  	CC_ATTR_HOST_SEV_SNP,
> +
> +	/**
> +	 * @CC_ATTR_SNP_SECURE_AVIC: Secure AVIC mode is active.
> +	 *
> +	 * The host kernel is running with the necessary features enabled
> +	 * to run SEV-SNP guests with full Secure AVIC capabilities.
> +	 */
> +	CC_ATTR_SNP_SECURE_AVIC,

I don't think CC attributes is the right way to track this kind of
features. My understanding of cc_platform interface is that it has to be
used to advertise some kind of property of the platform that generic code
and be interested in, not a specific implementation.

For the same reason, I think CC_ATTR_GUEST/HOST_SEV_SNP is also a bad use
of the interface.

Borislav, I know we had different view on this. What is your criteria on
what should and shouldn't be a CC attribute? I don't think we want a
parallel X86_FEATURE_*.

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov