Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.38 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.38;
Date:   Tue, 5 Dec 2023 17:00:35 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/coco, x86/sev: Use cpu_feature_enabled() to detect
 SEV guest flavor
Message-ID: <20231205160035.GEZW9JI8eKENXBo6EO@fat_crate.local>
References: <20231205143738.2875-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20231205144619.GCZW83uzAomKmupn7j@fat_crate.local>
 <20231205150012.6lma2wzcellr7pz7@box.shutemov.name>
 <20231205150648.GDZW88iAjBzYoIJ0+o@fat_crate.local>
 <20231205151437.aqmuydosfmnq3zr4@box.shutemov.name>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231205151437.aqmuydosfmnq3zr4@box.shutemov.name>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 06:14:37PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> My point is that if you need to check for SEV you need to check SEV, not
> CC_ATTR. CC_ATTRs only make sense in generic code that deals with multiple
> CoCo environments.

That makes more sense.

So that commit already says "If future support is added for other
memory encryption technologies, the use of CC_ATTR_GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT
can be updated, as required."

And what this test needs to do is to check:

	if (guest type >= SEV)

meaning SEV and -ES and -SNP.

I'm wondering if we should export amd_cc_platform_has() for such
cases...

The logic being, we're calling a SEV-specific function so using
cc_platform_has() in there is the wrong layer.

Tom?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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