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

[Borislav Petkov]

On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 05:01:31PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> The first is analogous to sme_active(), the second to sev_active() and the
> third to mem_encrypt_active(). Just my opinion, though...

Yeah, or cc_has() where "cc" means "confidential computing". Or "coco"...

Yeah, no good idea yet.

> I don't think you want a WARN_ON_ONCE() here. The code will be written to
> work with either SEV or TDX, so we shouldn't warn on a check for a TDX
> supported feature when running on AMD (or vice-versa).

That's an AMD-specific path so it would warn only when a flag is used
which is unknown/unused yet on AMD.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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