Re: [PATCH v2 5/9] KVM: SVM: Rename vmplX_ssp -> plX_ssp

[Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>]

On 2/27/24 12:14, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024, John Allen wrote:
>> Rename SEV-ES save area SSP fields to be consistent with the APM.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Allen <john.allen@amd.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h | 8 ++++----
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h
>> index 87a7b917d30e..728c98175b9c 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h
>> @@ -358,10 +358,10 @@ struct sev_es_save_area {
>>   	struct vmcb_seg ldtr;
>>   	struct vmcb_seg idtr;
>>   	struct vmcb_seg tr;
>> -	u64 vmpl0_ssp;
>> -	u64 vmpl1_ssp;
>> -	u64 vmpl2_ssp;
>> -	u64 vmpl3_ssp;
>> +	u64 pl0_ssp;
>> +	u64 pl1_ssp;
>> +	u64 pl2_ssp;
>> +	u64 pl3_ssp;
> 
> Are these CPL fields, or VMPL fields?  Presumably it's the former since this is
> a single save area.  If so, the changelog should call that out, i.e. make it clear
> that the current names are outright bugs.  If these somehow really are VMPL fields,
> I would prefer to diverge from the APM, because pl[0..3] is way to ambiguous in
> that case.

Definitely not VMPL fields...  I guess I had VMPL levels on my mind when I 
was typing those names.

Thanks,
Tom

> 
> It's borderline if they're CPL fields, but Intel calls them PL[0..3]_SSP, so I'm
> much less inclined to diverge from two other things in that case.