Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 10 May 2021 22:52:49 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@kernel.org>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@intel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 28/32] x86/tdx: Make pages shared in ioremap()
Message-ID: <YJm5QY8omAvdpBO9@google.com>
References: <cover.1619458733.git.sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <eaaa692ce1ed897f66f864bbfa2df8683768d79e.1619458733.git.sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <b884067a-19d6-105f-9f8c-28feb3b43446@intel.com>
 <312879fb-d201-a16d-2568-150152044c54@linux.intel.com>
 <797c95bf-9516-8aee-59d0-f5259d77bb75@linux.intel.com>
 <5b4b4fc0-aaa8-3407-6602-537d59572bc1@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <5b4b4fc0-aaa8-3407-6602-537d59572bc1@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

+Boris, who has similar opinions on sev_active().

On Mon, May 10, 2021, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/10/21 3:23 PM, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> -??? if (!sev_active())
> >>>> +??? if (!sev_active() && !is_tdx_guest())
> >>>> ????????? return 0;
> >>> I think it's time to come up with a real name for all of the code that's
> >>> under: (sev_active() || is_tdx_guest()).
> >>>
> >>> "encrypted" isn't it, for sure.
> >>
> >> I called it protected_guest() in some other patches.
> > 
> > If you are also fine with above mentioned function name, I can include it
> > in this series. Since we have many use cases of above condition, it will
> > be useful define it as helper function.
> 
> FWIW, I think sev_active() has a horrible name.  Shouldn't that be
> "is_sev_guest()"?  "sev_active()" could be read as "I'm a SEV host" or
> "I'm a SEV guest" and "SEV is active".

I can't find the thread offhand, but Boris proposed something along the lines of
cpu_has(), but specific to a given flavor of protected guest.  IIRC, it was
sev_guest_has(SEV_ES) or something like that.

I 100% agree that we should have actual feature bits somewhere for the various
protected guest flavors.

> protected_guest() seems fine to cover both, despite the horrid SEV
> naming.  It'll actually be nice to banish it from appearing in many of
> its uses. :)