linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/8] x86/sev: Prepare for using the RMPREAD instruction to access the RMP

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: <2dcb1db1-fc1b-0fd0-f878-470cfd22e8e8@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:47:06 -0500
From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>, Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@....com>,
 Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@....com>, Neeraj Upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/8] x86/sev: Prepare for using the RMPREAD instruction
 to access the RMP

On 10/25/24 07:09, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 01:41:55PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * The RMP entry format as returned by the RMPREAD instruction.
>> + */
>> +struct rmpread {
> 
> Hmm, I'm not sure this is better. "rmread" is an instruction but then you have
> a struct called this way too. Strange. :-\
> 
> I think you almost had it already with a little more explanations:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241018111043.GAZxJCM8DK-wEjDJZR@fat_crate.local
> 
> The convention being that the _raw entry is what's in the actual table and
> rmpentry is what RMPREAD returns. I think this is waaay more natural.
> 
> Hmmm.

Just wanted to show you what it looks like. There still is a lot of change
because of the new argument and using a structure now instead of the
direct entry.

I can change back and maybe add some more detail above the struct names if
that suffices.

Thanks,
Tom

>