On 9/28/21 1:58 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 01:48:46PM -0700, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
Just read it. If you want to use cpuid_has_tdx_guest() directly in
cc_platform_has(), then you want to rename intel_cc_platform_has() to
tdx_cc_platform_has()?
Why?
You
On 9/28/21 1:31 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:19:49PM -0700, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
Intel CC support patch is not included in this series. You want me
to address the issue raised by Joerg before merging it?
Did you not see my email to you today:
https
On 9/28/21 12:10 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
From: Borislav Petkov
Hi all,
here's v4 of the cc_platform_has() patchset with feedback incorporated.
I'm going to route this through tip if there are no objections.
Intel CC support patch is not included in this series. You want me
to address
On 9/16/21 8:02 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 10:26:06AM -0700, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
I have a Intel variant patch (please check following patch). But it includes
TDX changes as well. Shall I move TDX changes to different patch and just
create a separate
patch (please check following patch). But it includes
TDX changes as well. Shall I move TDX changes to different patch and just
create a separate patch for adding intel_cc_platform_has()?
commit fc5f98a0ed94629d903827c5b44ee9295f835831
Author: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
Date: Wed May 12 11:35:13
On 8/19/21 11:33 AM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
There was some talk about this on the mailing list where TDX and SEV may
need to be differentiated, so we wanted to reserve a range of values per
technology. I guess I can remove them until they are actually needed.
In TDX also we have similar require
technology-specific checks
to the code (e.g. if (sev_active() || tdx_active())).
Reviewed-by: Joerg Roedel
Co-developed-by: Andi Kleen
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen
Co-developed-by: Kuppuswamy
Sathyanarayanan
Signed-off-by: Kuppuswamy
Sathyanarayanan
Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky
---
arch/Kconfig
On 7/27/21 3:26 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
diff --git a/include/linux/protected_guest.h b/include/linux/protected_guest.h
new file mode 100644
index ..f8ed7b72967b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/linux/protected_guest.h
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
+/*
+ *
On 8/10/21 12:48 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
On 8/10/21 1:45 PM, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
On 7/27/21 3:26 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/head64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/head64.c
index de01903c3735..cafed6456d45 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/head64.c
+++ b/arch/x86
On 7/27/21 3:26 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/head64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/head64.c
index de01903c3735..cafed6456d45 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/head64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/head64.c
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
#include
#include
#include
-#include
+#include
#include
On 8/9/21 2:59 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
Not sure how TDX will handle AP booting, are you sure it needs this
special setup as well? Otherwise a check for SEV-ES would be better
instead of the generic PATTR_GUEST_PROT_STATE.
Yes, I'm not sure either. I figure that change can be made, if needed,
Hi Tom,
On 7/27/21 3:26 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
This patch series provides a generic helper function, prot_guest_has(),
to replace the sme_active(), sev_active(), sev_es_active() and
mem_encrypt_active() functions.
It is expected that as new protected virtualization technologies are
added to th
12 matches
Mail list logo
