lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC v2-fix-v2 1/1] x86: Introduce generic protected guest abstractionn
From
Date


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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-06-05 00:15    [W:0.379 / U:0.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site