From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 101B6C4338F for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 17:11:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E327261156 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 17:11:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232906AbhHTRMG (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Aug 2021 13:12:06 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:8940 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230052AbhHTRME (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Aug 2021 13:12:04 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10082"; a="216813830" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,338,1620716400"; d="scan'208";a="216813830" Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Aug 2021 10:11:25 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,338,1620716400"; d="scan'208";a="506529849" Received: from jmorauga-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO skuppusw-mobl5.amr.corp.intel.com) ([10.209.135.55]) by orsmga001-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Aug 2021 10:11:24 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/12] x86/tdx: Add protected guest support for TDX guest To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Sean Christopherson , Dave Hansen , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Andy Lutomirski , Peter H Anvin , Tony Luck , Dan Williams , Andi Kleen , Kirill Shutemov , Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20210804181329.2899708-5-sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> <9c576f24-e6de-f816-623d-408a4a2ae747@intel.com> <4f28fe6e-a8ce-e444-51db-d0eb564eca8f@linux.intel.com> <486afc0e-0396-e57b-63fe-31a8433bd603@linux.intel.com> From: "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" Message-ID: <8129ef50-467f-fe2e-c770-a32c690c5177@linux.intel.com> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 10:11:21 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/78.0 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 8/20/21 9:59 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > Err, why? > > TDX is Intel technology. That's like asking to have > > sev_prot_guest_has() and amd_prot_guest_has() on AMD. > > Maybe I still don't get what you're trying to achieve but from where I'm > standing that sounds wrong. My intention was to keep intel_* function clean and hide all TDX specific customization in tdx_* function (within in tdx.c) and call it from intel_* function (within cpu/intel.c). But I understand your point as well. I am fine with moving TDX specific checks to intel_* function. -- Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy Linux Kernel Developer