On 26.04.22 21:51, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 07:35:43PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 03:40:21PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>   /* protected virtualization */
>>>   static void pv_init(void)
>>>   {
>>>   	if (!is_prot_virt_guest())
>>>   		return;
>>>   
>>> +	platform_set_feature(PLATFORM_VIRTIO_RESTRICTED_MEM_ACCESS);
>>
>> Kinda long-ish for my taste. I'll probably call it:
>>
>> 	platform_set()
>>
>> as it is implicit that it sets a feature bit.
> 
> ...and platform_clear(), instead of platform_reset_feature() please.

Fine with me.

> 
>> In any case, yeah, looks ok at a quick glance. It would obviously need
>> for more people to look at it and say whether it makes sense to them and
>> whether that's fine to have in generic code but so far, the experience
>> with cc_platform_* says that it seems to work ok in generic code.
> 
> We _could_ convert s390's machine flags to this mechanism. Those flags
> are historically per-cpu, but if I'm not mistaken none of them is
> performance critical anymore, and those who are could/should probably
> transformed to jump labels or alternatives anyway.

I was planning to look at the x86 cpu features to see whether some of
those might be candidates to be switched to platform features instead.


Juergen