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, 1 Jun 2021 00:46:02 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@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>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.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
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 27/32] x86/tdx: Exclude Shared bit from __PHYSICAL_MASK
Message-ID: <20210531214602.qd6r63s5jbr4vcm5@box>
References: <cover.1619458733.git.sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <87b31425b79df3cc44d2bdc6a79d6aa36c42d116.1619458733.git.sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <3ae38a0b-0676-1543-7015-39a589b2807a@intel.com>
 <0df80c0f-e0da-e86e-0ab8-abc58f0da559@linux.intel.com>
 <YKa5gkwGTIUFpzzH@google.com>
 <b27a6d31-8fd9-e650-0adf-5f7a8fc96a1c@linux.intel.com>
 <YKbDtt2K4Z5gtYRc@google.com>
 <e257f5fa-e209-8a5b-659c-129abb72be42@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e257f5fa-e209-8a5b-659c-129abb72be42@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:56:13PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/20/21 1:16 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Thu, May 20, 2021, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> >> So what is your proposal? "tdx_guest_" / "tdx_host_" ?
> >   1. Abstract things where appropriate, e.g. I'm guessing there is a clever way
> >      to deal with the shared vs. private inversion and avoid tdg_shared_mask
> >      altogether.
> 
> One example here would be to keep a structure like:
> 
> struct protected_mem_config
> {
> 	unsigned long p_set_bits;
> 	unsigned long p_clear_bits;
> }
> 
> Where 'p_set_bits' are the bits that need to be set to establish memory
> protection and 'p_clear_bits' are the bits that need to be cleared.
> physical_mask would clear both of them:
> 
> 	physical_mask &= ~(pmc.p_set_bits & pmc.p_set_bits);

For me it looks like an abstraction for sake of abstraction. More levels
of indirection without clear benefit. It doesn't add any more readability:
would you know what 'p_set_bits' stands for in two month? I'm not sure.

I would rather leave explicit check for protection flavour. It provides
better context for a reader.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov