Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 5 Dec 2022 16:46:48 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc:     Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@amd.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, seanjc@google.com,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, michael.roth@amd.com, stable@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/sev: Add SEV-SNP guest feature negotiation support
Message-ID: <Y44SaBfAG4D9t0Xr@zn.tnic>
References: <20221201100423.7117-1-nikunj@amd.com>
 <Y44Amf9MJIIi4Ric@zn.tnic>
 <896d1b00-1602-2a0f-b50c-0582d5219039@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <896d1b00-1602-2a0f-b50c-0582d5219039@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 09:23:17AM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> This makes it sound like these features are required to run SNP, which
> they're not. It's that we can't run SNP with these features without support
> in the guest. So while the patch name is long, it is accurate.

Maybe, but it is a mouthful this way. And unreadable. And there's plenty
of comments explaining what it is. And it is used in one place only.

> Maybe SNP_FEATURES_NEED_IMPLEMENTATION if you want to shorten it a little?

"need implementation" where? Host? Guest?

I.e., we're relying on comments to explain what the name is, one way or
the other.

How about a short and sweet:

		if (sev_status & SNP_FEATURES_IMPL_REQ & ~SNP_FEATURES_PRESENT)

along with the explanation in a comment above it. Comment which is a
must regardless.

Hmm.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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