lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [5]   [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 6/5/21 4:03 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Aha,*now*, I see what you mean. Ok, so the reason why I added the
> WARN is to sanity-check whether we're handling all possible VM_* or
> PROT_GUEST_* flags properly and whether we're missing some. As a
> debugging help. It'll get removed before applying I guess.

Borislav/Tom,

Any consensus on function name and flag prefix?

Currently suggested function names are,

cc_has() or protected_guest_has() or prot_guest_has() or protected_boot_has()

For flag prefix either PR_GUEST_* or CC_*

I am planning to submit another version of this patch with suggested fixes.
If we could reach some consensus on function and flag names, I can include
them in it. If not, I will submit next version without any renames.

Please let me know your comments.

BTW, my choice is protected_guest_has() or CC_has().

--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-06-05 20:14    [W:0.660 / U:1.444 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site