Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210818053908.1907051-1-mizhang@google.com> <20210818053908.1907051-4-mizhang@google.com>
 <YTJ5wjNShaHlDVAp@google.com> <fcb83a85-8150-9617-01e6-c6bcc249c485@amd.com>
 <YTf3udAv1TZzW+xA@google.com> <8421f104-34e8-cc68-1066-be95254af625@amd.com>
 <YTpOsUAqHjQ9DDLd@google.com> <CAL715W+u6mt5grwoT6DBhUtzN6xx=OjWPu6M0=p0sxLZ4JTvDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <48af420f-20e3-719a-cf5c-e651a176e7c2@amd.com> <CAL715WL6g3P6QKv1w-zSDvY3jjLVdbfxaqyr2XV_NicnuP2+EQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL715WL6g3P6QKv1w-zSDvY3jjLVdbfxaqyr2XV_NicnuP2+EQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Marc Orr <marcorr@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Sep 2021 18:23:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CAA03e5HK1Qkk0uyZRi_ncFewJ5yStXWGT7REQdYQ2Z1BYHcCew@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] KVM: SVM: move sev_bind_asid to psp
To:     Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com>
Cc:     Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        John Allen <john.allen@amd.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alper Gun <alpergun@google.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        David Rienjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>,
        Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 6:18 PM Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com> wrote:
>
> > I believe once we are done with it, will have 5 functions that will need
> >  >=8 arguments. I don't know if its acceptable.
> >
> > > In addition, having to construct each sev_data_* structure in KVM code
> > > is also a pain and  consumes a lot of irrelevant lines as well.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe I am missing something, aren't those lines will be moved from KVM
> > to PSP driver?
> >
> > I am in full support for restructuring, but lets look at full set of PSP
> > APIs before making the final decision.
> >
> > thanks
> >
>
> Oh, sorry for the confusion. I think the current feedback I got is
> that my restructuring patchset was blocked due to the fact that it is
> a partial one. So, if this patchset got checked in, then the psp-sev.h
> will have two types of APIs: ones that use sev_data_* structure and
> ones that do not. So one of the worries is that this would make the
> situation even worse.
>
> So that's why I am thinking that maybe it is fine to just avoid using
> sev_data_* for all PSP functions exposed to KVM? I use the number of
> arguments as the justification. But that might not be a good one.
>
> In anycase, I will not rush into any code change before we reach a consensus.

Isn't the first patch in this patch set a straight-forward bug fix
:-)? Assuming others agree, I'd suggest to re-send that one out as a
single patch on its own, so we can get it merged while the rest of
this patch set works its way through the process.