Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 04/11] x86/x86: Add is_tdx_guest() interface | From | "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" <> | Date | Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:01:41 -0700 |
| |
On 6/10/21 12:59 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 07:21:29PM -0700, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
>> + if (memcmp("IntelTDX ", signature, 12)) >> + return false; >> + >> + return true; > > As before, > > return !memcmp(... > > and then that function can return simply an int.
I will make the above change in next version.
> > >> +} >> + >> +bool is_tdx_guest(void) > > If anything, this should be early_is_tdx_guest().
If this is the recommendation, I am fine with it. It is only used by __in/__out macros in decompression code.
> >> +{ >> + if (tdx_guest < 0) >> + tdx_guest = native_cpuid_has_tdx_guest(); >> + >> + return !!tdx_guest; >> +} >> + > > Applying: x86/x86: Add is_tdx_guest() interface > .git/rebase-apply/patch:58: new blank line at EOF. > + > warning: 1 line adds whitespace errors.
I will fix it in next version.
> > >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tdx.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tdx.c >> index 5b14b72e41c5..5e70617e9877 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tdx.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tdx.c >> @@ -19,6 +19,12 @@ static inline bool cpuid_has_tdx_guest(void) >> return true; >> } >> >> +bool is_tdx_guest(void) >> +{ >> + return static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TDX_GUEST); >> +} >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(is_tdx_guest); > > I don't like this is_tdx_guest() thing in kernel proper - what's wrong > with > > prot_guest_has(PR_GUEST_TDX)
Is it alright to use vendor name in prot_guest_has() flag? I thought we want to keep them generic. If this is acceptable, we can replace is_tdx_guest() with prot_guest_has() calls. Currently it is not used in many places.
> > ? > > Also, why is it exported, for kvm?
Yes. It is used in exported KVM functions.
> > Thx. >
-- Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy Linux Kernel Developer
| |