[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 04/11] x86: Introduce generic protected guest abstraction
On 6/28/21 12:52 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 6/18/21 5:57 PM, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
>> +
>> +static inline bool prot_guest_has(unsigned long flag)
>> +{
>> + if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
>> + return tdx_protected_guest_has(flag);
>> + else if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD)
>> + return sev_protected_guest_has(flag);
> So as I think about this, I don't think this will work if the hypervisor
> decides to change the vendor name, right?
> And doesn't TDX supply "IntelTDX " as a signature. I don't see where
> the signature is used to set the CPU vendor to X86_VENDOR_INTEL.
> The current SEV checks to set sev_status, which is used by sme_active(),
> sev_active, etc.) are based on the max leaf and CPUID bits, but not a
> CPUID vendor check.
> So maybe we can keep the prot_guest_has() but I think it will have to be a
> common routine, with a "switch" statement that has supporting case element
> that check for "sev_active() || static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TDX_GUEST)", etc.

Or keep the separate vendor routines for separation and easier testing
but, instead, they would have to key off of the support:

if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TDX_GUEST))
return tdx_prot_guest_has(flag);
else if (sme_active() || sev_active())
return sev_prot_guest_has(flag);


 \ /
  Last update: 2021-06-28 21:01    [W:0.063 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site