Re: [RFC v2-fix-v2 1/1] x86: Introduce generic protected guest abstraction

[Borislav Petkov]

On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:15:23PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> The original suggestion from Boris, IIRC, was for protected_guest_has()
> function (below) to be:
> 
> 	if (intel)
> 		return intel_protected_guest_has();
> 	else if (amd)
> 		return amd_protected_guest_has();
> 	else
> 		return false;
> 
> And then you could check for TDX or SME/SEV in the respective functions.

Yeah, a single function call which calls vendor-specific functions.

If you can point me to a tree with your patches, I can try to hack up
what I mean.

> I believe Boris was wanting to replace the areas where sme_active() was
> specifically checked, too. And so protected_guest_has() can be confusing...

We can always say

	protected_guest_has(SME_ACTIVE);

or so and then it is clear.

> Maybe naming it protected_os_has() or protection_attr_active() might work.
> This would then work SME or MKTME as well.

But other names are fine too once we're done with the bikeshedding.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette