Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v10 03/11] x86/cpufeatures: Add TDX Guest CPU feature | From | Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy <> | Date | Wed, 13 Oct 2021 15:28:51 -0700 |
| |
On 10/13/21 2:37 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 11:25:35PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> So this ends up in doing: >> >> use(); >> init(); >> >> Can you spot what's wrong with that? >> >> That's a clear violation of common sense and is simply not going to >> happen. Why? If you think about deep defensive programming then use() >> will look like this: >> >> use() >> { >> assert(initialized); >> } >> >> which is not something made up. It's a fundamental principle of >> programming and some languages enforce that for very good reasons. >> >> Just because it can be done in C is no justification. > Oh, I heartily agree. > >> What's wrong with: >> >> x86_64_start_kernel() >> >> tdx_early_init(); >> >> copy_bootdata(); >> >> tdx_late_init(); >> >> Absolutely nothing. It's clear, simple and well defined. > I like simple more than anyone, so sure, I'd prefer that a lot more. > > And so the options parsing would need to happen early using, say, > cmdline_find_option() or so, like sme_enable() does.
Since in tdx_early_init() all we are going to do is to initialize "tdx_guest_detected" using cpuid call, shall we name it tdx_guest_cpuid_init()? (similar to sme_enable call in AMD)
> > Hmmm. > -- Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy Linux Kernel Developer
| |