Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC v2-fix-v2 1/1] x86: Introduce generic protected guest abstractionn | From | "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" <> | Date | Fri, 4 Jun 2021 15:13:50 -0700 |
| |
On 6/4/21 3:01 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote: >> */ >> - if (sme_active()) >> + if (protected_guest_has(VM_HOST_MEM_ENCRYPT)) >> swiotlb = 1; > I still feel this is confusing. SME is a host/bare-metal technology, so > calling protected_guest_has() seems odd and using VM_HOST_MEM_ENCRYPT, > where I assume VM is short for virtual machine, also seems odd. > > How about just protected_os_has()? Then you could have > - HOST_MEM_ENCRYPT for host memory encryption > - GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT for guest memory encryption > - MEM_ENCRYPT for either host or guest memory encryption. > > The first is analogous to sme_active(), the second to sev_active() and the > third to mem_encrypt_active(). Just my opinion, though... >
I am not sure whether OS makes sense here. But I am fine with it if it is maintainers choice.
Other option could be protected_boot_has()?
-- Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy Linux Kernel Developer
| |