Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC v2-fix-v2 1/1] x86: Introduce generic protected guest abstraction | From | "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" <> | Date | Mon, 7 Jun 2021 11:01:05 -0700 |
| |
On 6/3/21 11:14 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 02:14:17PM -0700, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
snip
> diff --git a/include/linux/protected_guest.h b/include/linux/protected_guest.h > index 6855d5b3e244..bb4b1a06b21f 100644 > --- a/include/linux/protected_guest.h > +++ b/include/linux/protected_guest.h > @@ -2,7 +2,9 @@ > #ifndef _LINUX_PROTECTED_GUEST_H > #define _LINUX_PROTECTED_GUEST_H 1 > > -#include <linux/mem_encrypt.h> > +#include <asm/processor.h> > +#include <asm/tdx.h> > +#include <asm/sev.h> > > /* Protected Guest Feature Flags (leave 0-0xff for arch specific flags) */ > > @@ -20,23 +22,18 @@ > #define VM_DISABLE_UNCORE_SUPPORT 0x105 > > #if defined(CONFIG_INTEL_TDX_GUEST) || defined(CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT) > - > -#include <asm/tdx.h> > -
Why move this header outside CONFIG_INTEL_TDX_GUEST or CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT ifdef?
This header only exists in x86 arch code. So it is better to protect it with x86 specific header file.
> static inline bool protected_guest_has(unsigned long flag) > { > if (is_tdx_guest()) > return tdx_protected_guest_has(flag); > - else if (mem_encrypt_active()) > - return amd_protected_guest_has(flag); > + else if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD) > + return sev_protected_guest_has(flag); > > return false; > } > > #else > - > static inline bool protected_guest_has(unsigned long flag) { return false; } > - > #endif > > -#endif > +#endif /* _LINUX_PROTECTED_GUEST_H */ > >
-- Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy Linux Kernel Developer
| |