From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 412CAC433EF for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 23:25:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235637AbiBUXZz (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Feb 2022 18:25:55 -0500 Received: from mxb-00190b01.gslb.pphosted.com ([23.128.96.19]:40328 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231261AbiBUXZw (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Feb 2022 18:25:52 -0500 Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D02E52458B for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 15:25:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1645485928; x=1677021928; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=2Gv3hpY5QZY53Ir15UzbMUvC3S5cQYGic9ErfjLXk7c=; b=MS1izsLQsG52k5GYDKKkwSrmQ/5ujH9yLNtcsmgnLLjM1Oi3AWlIHioQ IUnDfKgU6edy/vljBdH393TZAx6P1Isg9DSt7HJbBk720PgzjCKuuGU10 Cwn7B1UqzN3S+OyLJ7dQc3g6C3ZxnIwv0FdewL9ilbckNQzg3kdjuGScT S+4snctdD8eVZLV+jaCbJUdwsILcPhAbMxk8USI7dVTVHXy/L26YoYit6 NGMktnVUQm7evJq+YgFqnfj6XpFC8OwppLbdyNlBDlIWrdvGTYFMR5sYJ ZZTemYxldlWRng8sdT5fnxoXPFcJhpJJKAaEQdJxEHqHxTm4CQAmYODYh A==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10265"; a="250400864" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.88,386,1635231600"; d="scan'208";a="250400864" Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Feb 2022 15:25:28 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.88,386,1635231600"; d="scan'208";a="638695715" Received: from black.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.28]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Feb 2022 15:25:22 -0800 Received: by black.fi.intel.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8923A12C; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 01:25:38 +0200 (EET) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 02:25:38 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: Borislav Petkov Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , aarcange@redhat.com, ak@linux.intel.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, david@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, jgross@suse.com, jmattson@google.com, joro@8bytes.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com, knsathya@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, luto@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, sdeep@vmware.com, seanjc@google.com, tglx@linutronix.de, tony.luck@intel.com, vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv3.1 2.1/2] x86/coco: Add API to handle encryption mask Message-ID: <20220221232538.3pd3w63s5v3us5xt@black.fi.intel.com> References: <20220219001305.22883-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20220219001305.22883-2-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20220221221049.p5zvappg4s2mjem7@black.fi.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 11:36:55PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 01:10:49AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > I'm not sure it is a good idea. It leaves room for code between these two > > calls. I believe they conceptually has to initialized in one shot. That's > > the only way we get consistent state. > > Really, where? I'm talking about potential issue if cc_set_vendor() and cc_set_mask() would drift apart. But, okay, I see that you don't feel it an issue. Will do your way. -- Kirill A. Shutemov