ice *dev)
> > {
> > - return sev_active();
> > + return is_prot_virt_guest();
> > }
>
> Do we want to keep the comment for force_dma_unencrypted?
Yes we do. With the comment transferred:
Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic
>
> Otherwise looks good:
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 18:55:47 -0300
Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>
> [ Cc'ing Tom Lendacky which I forgot to do earlier. Sorry about that. ]
>
> Hello Halil,
>
> Thanks for the quick review.
>
> Halil Pasic writes:
>
> > On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 02:36:31
On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 17:11:29 +0200
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 04:51:53PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > Thank you very much! I will have another look, but it seems to me,
> > without further measures taken, this would break protected virtualization
> >
On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 16:08:12 +0200
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 03:09:12PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > This is the implementation for the guys that don't
> > have ARCH_HAS_MEM_ENCRYPT.
> >
> > Means sev_active() may not be used in such
On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 02:36:31 -0300
Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> Secure Encrypted Virtualization is an x86-specific feature, so it shouldn't
> appear in generic kernel code because it forces non-x86 architectures to
> define the sev_active() function, which doesn't make a lot of sense.
sev_acti
