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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 35BF7C4338F for ; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 21:51:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1721660FDA for ; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 21:51:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235012AbhHJVwO (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:52:14 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:53452 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234545AbhHJVwN (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:52:13 -0400 Received: from zn.tnic (p200300ec2f0d6500329c23fffea6a903.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:ec:2f0d:6500:329c:23ff:fea6:a903]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id 95C511EC0347; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 23:51:45 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1628632305; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=bhrvSWnua4QgXGDLToC7m7WROlxA3VPxoYeGWv6d9b4=; b=p7oMu+RhNEK0R7x19i+M996JIz9jAolp9gSi95HKMhewjNccujQhOtGEXBac5xmuyWnoQ8 VtNpb/aUb4bne0yLrWo++9p6EawNSD7KAttCXyDPqb0UwUAg1MTrP2eFAOM1Zm3RyuHGj4 2kVcVvuDB8EtlmSykCB6fmc5ev+4LKM= Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 23:52:25 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Tom Lendacky Cc: Brijesh Singh , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Joerg Roedel , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ard Biesheuvel , Paolo Bonzini , Sean Christopherson , Vitaly Kuznetsov , Wanpeng Li , Jim Mattson , Andy Lutomirski , Dave Hansen , Sergio Lopez , Peter Gonda , Peter Zijlstra , Srinivas Pandruvada , David Rientjes , Dov Murik , Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum , Michael Roth , Vlastimil Babka , tony.luck@intel.com, brijesh.ksingh@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH Part1 RFC v4 05/36] x86/sev: Define the Linux specific guest termination reasons Message-ID: References: <20210707181506.30489-1-brijesh.singh@amd.com> <20210707181506.30489-6-brijesh.singh@amd.com> <955b4f50-5a7b-8c60-d31e-864bc29638f5@amd.com> <65c53556-94e1-b372-7fb1-64bb78c7ae15@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <65c53556-94e1-b372-7fb1-64bb78c7ae15@amd.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 02:30:44PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote: > IIRC, during the review of the first GHCB version there was discussion > about assigning reason sets outside of 0 within the spec and the overall > feeling was to not do that as part of the spec. > > We can re-open that discussion for the next version of the GHCB document. My worry is that if nothing documents which sets are allocated to which vendor, it'll become a mess. Imagine a Linux SNP guest and a windoze one, both running on a KVM hypervisor (is that even possible?) and both using the same termination reason set with conflicting reason numbers. Unneeded confusion. Unless the spec says, "reason set 1 is allocated to Linux, set 2 to windoze, etc" Then all know which is which. And so on... Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette