Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 7 Jun 2021 22:14:30 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [RFC v2-fix-v2 1/1] x86: Introduce generic protected guest abstractionn |
| |
On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 10:55:44PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > I think conversions like this are wrong: relocate_kernel(), which got > called here, only knows how to deal with SME, not how to handle some > generic case.
What do you mean wrong? Wrong for TDX?
If so, then that can be
protected_guest_has(SME)
or so, which would be false on Intel.
And this patch was only a mechanical conversion to see how it would look like.
> If code is written to handle a specific technology we need to stick > with a check that makes it clear. Trying to make sound generic only > leads to confusion.
Sure, fine by me.
And I don't want a zoo of gazillion small checking functions per technology. sev_<something>, tdx_<something>, yadda yadda.
So stuff better be unified. Even if you'd have vendor-specific defines you hand into that function - and you will have such - it is still much saner than what it turns into with the AMD side of things.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
| |