[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXE0o+ody9V0APmDqRT=skiUyeDDYE3dMVi+sngQ8QxSFA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 11:24:10 +0100
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dionna Amalie Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>, Kevin Loughlin <kevinloughlin@...gle.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFT PATCH v3 01/21] x86/sev: Separate MSR and GHCB based
snp_cpuid() via a callback
On Thu, 15 May 2025 at 08:22, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>
> * Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > + if (cr4 & X86_CR4_OSXSAVE)
> > + /* Safe to read xcr0 */
> > + ghcb_set_xcr0(ghcb, xgetbv(XCR_XFEATURE_ENABLED_MASK));
> > + else
> > + /* xgetbv will cause #UD - use reset value for xcr0 */
> > + ghcb_set_xcr0(ghcb, 1);
>
> Just a couple of style nits here - this new __sev_cpuid_hv_ghcb()
> function
__sev_cpuid_hv_ghcb() is just being moved from one source file to
another - I didn't change a single line, and so I don't think tweaking
the style is appropriate for this patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists