Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC v2-fix-v2 1/1] x86: Introduce generic protected guest abstractionn | From | "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" <> | Date | Sat, 5 Jun 2021 11:12:57 -0700 |
| |
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
| |