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

[Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan]

On 6/5/21 4:03 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Aha,*now*, I see what you mean. Ok, so the reason why I added the
> WARN is to sanity-check whether we're handling all possible VM_* or
> PROT_GUEST_* flags properly and whether we're missing some. As a
> debugging help. It'll get removed before applying I guess.

Borislav/Tom,

Any consensus on function name and flag prefix?

Currently suggested function names are,

cc_has() or protected_guest_has() or prot_guest_has() or protected_boot_has()

For flag prefix either PR_GUEST_* or CC_*

I am planning to submit another version of this patch with suggested fixes.
If we could reach some consensus on function and flag names, I can include
them in it. If not, I will submit next version without any renames.

Please let me know your comments.

BTW, my choice is protected_guest_has() or CC_has().

--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer