Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 Jun 2021 17:20:24 +0000 | From | Sean Christopherson <> | Subject | Re: [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; > +}
| |