Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 Jun 2021 20:29:22 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [RFC v2-fix-v2 1/1] x86: Introduce generic protected guest abstraction |
| |
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:15:23PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote: > The original suggestion from Boris, IIRC, was for protected_guest_has() > function (below) to be: > > if (intel) > return intel_protected_guest_has(); > else if (amd) > return amd_protected_guest_has(); > else > return false; > > And then you could check for TDX or SME/SEV in the respective functions.
Yeah, a single function call which calls vendor-specific functions.
If you can point me to a tree with your patches, I can try to hack up what I mean.
> I believe Boris was wanting to replace the areas where sme_active() was > specifically checked, too. And so protected_guest_has() can be confusing...
We can always say
protected_guest_has(SME_ACTIVE);
or so and then it is clear.
> Maybe naming it protected_os_has() or protection_attr_active() might work. > This would then work SME or MKTME as well.
But other names are fine too once we're done with the bikeshedding.
Thx.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
| |