linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: TDX: Remove redundant definitions of TDX_TD_ATTR

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: <aG0lK5MiufiTCi9x@google.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 07:03:23 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, kvm@...r.kernel.org, 
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, x86@...nel.org, 
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, 
	binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com, yan.y.zhao@...el.com, reinette.chatre@...el.com, 
	isaku.yamahata@...el.com, adrian.hunter@...el.com, tony.lindgren@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: TDX: Remove redundant definitions of TDX_TD_ATTR_*

On Tue, Jul 08, 2025, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> There are definitions of TD attributes bits inside asm/shared/tdx.h as
> TDX_ATTR_*.
> 
> Remove KVM's definitions and use the ones in asm/shared/tdx.h
> 
> Reviewed-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c      | 4 ++--
>  arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx_arch.h | 6 ------
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
> index c539c2e6109f..efb7d589b672 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
> @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ void tdh_vp_wr_failed(struct vcpu_tdx *tdx, char *uclass, char *op, u32 field,
>  	pr_err("TDH_VP_WR[%s.0x%x]%s0x%llx failed: 0x%llx\n", uclass, field, op, val, err);
>  }
>  
> -#define KVM_SUPPORTED_TD_ATTRS (TDX_TD_ATTR_SEPT_VE_DISABLE)
> +#define KVM_SUPPORTED_TD_ATTRS (TDX_ATTR_SEPT_VE_DISABLE)

Would it make sense to rename KVM_SUPPORTED_TD_ATTRS to KVM_SUPPORTED_TDX_ATTRS?
The names from common code lack the TD qualifier, and I think it'd be helpful for
readers to have have TDX in the name (even though I agree "TD" is more precise).