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:   Tue, 11 May 2021 20:41:26 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, jroedel@suse.de, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, mingo@redhat.com, dave.hansen@intel.com,
        rientjes@google.com, seanjc@google.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        hpa@zytor.com, tony.luck@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH Part1 RFC v2 02/20] x86/sev: Save the negotiated GHCB
 version
Message-ID: <YJrP1vTXmtzXYapq@zn.tnic>
References: <20210430121616.2295-1-brijesh.singh@amd.com>
 <20210430121616.2295-3-brijesh.singh@amd.com>
 <YJpM+VZaEr68hTwZ@zn.tnic>
 <36add6ab-0115-d290-facd-2709e3c93fb9@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <36add6ab-0115-d290-facd-2709e3c93fb9@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 01:29:00PM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> I ignored it, because I thought I still need to initialize the value to
> zero because it does not go into .bss section which gets initialized to
> zero by kernel on boot.
> 
> I guess I was wrong, maybe compiler or kernel build ensures that
> ghcb_version variable to be init'ed to zero because its marked static ?

Yes.

If in doubt, always look at the generated asm:

make arch/x86/kernel/sev.s

You can see the .zero 2 gas directive there, where the variable is
defined.

> In patch #4, you will see that I increase the GHCB max protocol version
> to 2, and then min_t() will choose the lower value. I didn't combine
> version bump and caching into same patch because I felt I will be asked
> to break them into two logical patches.

Hmm, what would be the reasoning to keep the version bump in a separate
patch?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette