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:   Wed, 2 Jun 2021 20:29:22 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@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>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@intel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2-fix-v2 1/1] x86: Introduce generic protected guest
 abstraction
Message-ID: <YLfOApYdX/KL1wKF@zn.tnic>
References: <20210527042356.3983284-2-sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <20210601211417.2177598-1-sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <YLe92NXx1jZPtPqB@google.com>
 <3036a655-9d09-0f04-62a2-7a72ba9af5c7@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3036a655-9d09-0f04-62a2-7a72ba9af5c7@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:15:23PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> The original suggestion from Boris, IIRC, was for protected_guest_has()
> function (below) to be:
> 
> 	if (intel)
> 		return intel_protected_guest_has();
> 	else if (amd)
> 		return amd_protected_guest_has();
> 	else
> 		return false;
> 
> And then you could check for TDX or SME/SEV in the respective functions.

Yeah, a single function call which calls vendor-specific functions.

If you can point me to a tree with your patches, I can try to hack up
what I mean.

> I believe Boris was wanting to replace the areas where sme_active() was
> specifically checked, too. And so protected_guest_has() can be confusing...

We can always say

	protected_guest_has(SME_ACTIVE);

or so and then it is clear.

> Maybe naming it protected_os_has() or protection_attr_active() might work.
> This would then work SME or MKTME as well.

But other names are fine too once we're done with the bikeshedding.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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