Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Nov 2022 17:33:37 +0100 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [Patch v3 07/14] x86/hyperv: Change vTOM handling to use standard coco mechanisms |
| |
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 02:38:11PM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote: > Any further comment on this patch? I think we're agreement. For > this patch series I propose to change the symbol "CC_VENDOR_HYPERV" > to "CC_VENDOR_AMD_VTOM" and the function name > hyperv_cc_platform_has() to amd_vtom_cc_platform_has().
That doesn't sound optimal to me.
So, let's clarify things first: those Isolation VMs - are they going to be the paravisors?
I don't see any other option because the unmodified guest must be some old windoze....
So, if they're going to be that, then I guess this should be called
CC_ATTR_PARAVISOR
to denote that it is a thin layer of virt gunk between an unmodified guest and a hypervisor.
And if TDX wants to do that too later, then they can use that flag too.
Yes, no?
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
| |