On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 01:33:09PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> I did it as inline originally because the presence of the function will be
> decided based on the ARCH_HAS_PROTECTED_GUEST config. For now, that is
> only selected by the AMD memory encryption support, so if I went out of
> line I coul
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
On 8/19/21 4:52 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:59:22AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> While the name suggests this is intended mainly for guests, it will
>> also be used for host memory encryption checks in place of sme_active().
>
> Which suggest that the name is not goo
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 10:52:53AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Which suggest that the name is not good to start with. Maybe protected
> hardware, system or platform might be a better choice?
Yah, coming up with a proper name here hasn't been easy.
prot_guest_has() is not the first variant.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:59:22AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> While the name suggests this is intended mainly for guests, it will
> also be used for host memory encryption checks in place of sme_active().
Which suggest that the name is not good to start with. Maybe protected
hardware, system or
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:22:52AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> I can change it to be an AMD/HYGON check... although, I'll have to check
> to see if any (very) early use of the function will work with that.
We can always change it later if really needed. It is just that I'm not
a fan of such "pre
On 8/15/21 9:39 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 08:53:31AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> It's not a cross-vendor thing as opposed to a KVM or other hypervisor
>> thing where the family doesn't have to be reported as AMD or HYGON.
>
> What would be the use case? A HV starts a g
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 08:53:31AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> It's not a cross-vendor thing as opposed to a KVM or other hypervisor
> thing where the family doesn't have to be reported as AMD or HYGON.
What would be the use case? A HV starts a guest which is supposed to be
encrypted using the AM
On 8/14/21 2:08 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:59:22AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/protected_guest.h
b/arch/x86/include/asm/protected_guest.h
new file mode 100644
index ..51e4eefd9542
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pr
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:59:22AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/protected_guest.h
> b/arch/x86/include/asm/protected_guest.h
> new file mode 100644
> index ..51e4eefd9542
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/protected_guest.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
Introduce an x86 version of the prot_guest_has() function. This will be
used in the more generic x86 code to replace vendor specific calls like
sev_active(), etc.
While the name suggests this is intended mainly for guests, it will
also be used for host memory encryption checks in place of sme_acti
11 matches
Mail list logo
