On 24.04.22 20:08, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> 
> On 4/24/22 12:53 PM, Oleksandr wrote:
>>
>> On 23.04.22 19:40, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_RESTRICTED_VIRTIO_MEMORY_ACCESS
>>>> +int arch_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    return (xen_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access() ||
>>>> +            cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT));
>>>> +}
>>> So instead of hardcoding Xen here, this seems like a candidate for
>>> another cc_platform_has flag.
>>
>>
>> I have a limited knowledge of x86 and Xen on x86.
>>
>> Would the Xen specific bits fit into Confidential Computing Platform checks? I 
>> will let Juergen/Boris comment on this.
>>
> 
> This is unrelated to confidential so I don't think we can add another CC_ flag.
> 
> 
> Would arch/x86/kernel/cpu/hypervisor.c be a better home for this?

Or a callback in struct struct x86_hyper_runtime maybe?


Juergen