lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC v2-fix-v2 1/1] x86: Introduce generic protected guest abstraction
    On Tue, Jun 01, 2021, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
    > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
    > index 9c80c68d75b5..1492b0eb29d0 100644
    > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
    > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
    > @@ -56,6 +56,8 @@ bool sev_es_active(void);
    >
    > #define __bss_decrypted __section(".bss..decrypted")
    >
    > +bool amd_protected_guest_has(unsigned long flag);


    Why call one by the vendor (amd) and the other by the technology (tdx)?
    sev_protected_guest_has() seems like the more logical name, e.g. if AMD CPUs
    gain a new non-SEV technology then we'll have a mess.

    > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/tdx.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/tdx.h
    > index f0c1912837c8..cbfe7479f2a3 100644
    > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/tdx.h
    > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/tdx.h
    > @@ -71,6 +71,8 @@ u64 __tdx_module_call(u64 fn, u64 rcx, u64 rdx, u64 r8, u64 r9,
    > u64 __tdx_hypercall(u64 fn, u64 r12, u64 r13, u64 r14, u64 r15,
    > struct tdx_hypercall_output *out);
    >
    > +bool tdx_protected_guest_has(unsigned long flag);

    ...

    > +static inline bool protected_guest_has(unsigned long flag)
    > +{
    > + if (is_tdx_guest())
    > + return tdx_protected_guest_has(flag);
    > + else if (mem_encrypt_active())

    Shouldn't this be sev_active()? mem_encrypt_active() will return true for SME,
    too.

    > + return amd_protected_guest_has(flag);
    > +
    > + return false;
    > +}

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2021-06-02 19:21    [W:4.150 / U:0.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site