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: <yoqhgkq7ewwqhvrqfae23lz2ke4chetwo6es32zj7z7x6c3zc2@322aqn4s3bgq>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 10:29:23 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Neeraj Upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>, 
	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 Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 03:53:35PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 03:12:41PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > If you use SNP or TDX check in generic code something is wrong.  Abstraction
> > is broken somewhere. Generic code doesn't need to know concrete
> > implementation.
> 
> That's perhaps because you're thinking that the *actual* coco implementation type
> should be hidden away from generic code. But SNP and TDX are pretty different
> so we might as well ask for them by their name.
> 
> But I can see why you'd think there might be some abstraction violation there.
> 
> My goal here - even though there might be some bad taste of abstraction
> violation here - is simplicity. As expressed a bunch of times already, having
> cc_platform *and* X86_FEATURE* things used in relation to coco code can be
> confusing. So I'd prefer to avoid that confusion.
> 
> Nothing says anywhere that arch code cannot use cc_platform interfaces.
> Absolutely nothing. So for the sake of KISS I'm going in that direction.
> 
> If it turns out later that this was a bad idea and we need to change it, we
> can always can. As we do for other interfaces in the kernel.
> 
> If you're still not convinced, I already asked you:
> 
> "Do you have a better idea which is cleaner than what we do now?"
> 
> Your turn.

Okay, I've got your point. It is not what I would do, but I don't have
sufficient argument to change what is already there.

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov