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 C0FEFC4167B for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2023 16:00:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1442506AbjLEQAs (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Dec 2023 11:00:48 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48798 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1346428AbjLEQAr (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Dec 2023 11:00:47 -0500 Received: from mail.alien8.de (mail.alien8.de [65.109.113.108]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 727EEC0 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2023 08:00:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.alien8.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTP id 5CD5240E0195; Tue, 5 Dec 2023 16:00:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.alien8.de Authentication-Results: mail.alien8.de (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (4096-bit key) header.d=alien8.de Received: from mail.alien8.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.alien8.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id oJp3iniH4q9n; Tue, 5 Dec 2023 16:00:49 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=alien8; t=1701792049; bh=skWef669LIuW0C7FbIVUwAo/oIDKwFCgLbWfyWSokAM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=fIiGrk+hATSHkcLrZ3Yzahlp9bedmttWKp0Ul3RfLURg2WTeH3SeVnN3KKja1v1HS flpH4z5Q0Rim28eWp7rEZBFqGQz/l8q6dj+7dR8xSlUetggZYIkQPMOhYpw/rhNT2H J7W1B34JClWIDJEMrXNjadcqejweJrcc5khoYau+vgSC7bO8YwuQNlidlJML3IT01T gVaqH4XKci6mm3br0giSkJrS/paFOpKaHJw2rq/gMrp8mGZzKesTntVCYp++DTXnFI 3gQEYPEs75kz1wQlyhWIXA7LFWYuoLqo5cYdVRUjHs5FCWS/6/xbQuXvpQg7u3uv/1 Pt8MZ0BvJ8AdGgVlaDcYzy4Yezn0wTqake2hulwNvPa2M02GDnBEz4l2jK9yfdIA1P kWouLjo/GFMisFp6FSukDFFw/Q1F9shaxD9Vgr9bbDKs2iiczMcaAM4Ymq3L/vBlR4 QnVo7sSsxhzfHxfoN3xwELWjLyu69z9ybhXRmP2fo1HfTlouCCuurKX4BACk4yzzTg vRlzKxZWA/wL8Al5ZtAzGm5jpzgXPYpOWoEoUTPPa4dJGG+bl/NN9AtnU/KQYIBQ9M mwt5zC5baoPsxhjcG2Nq4IqlAp2Kcr/XmLFF/C4N6UhhjLZHhAO1rDPVoY2a6kV/P9 XtHQ+g0z4wxqDNQetTSeuh6E= Received: from zn.tnic (pd95304da.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.83.4.218]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.alien8.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id 658E240E014B; Tue, 5 Dec 2023 16:00:40 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 17:00:35 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: Tom Lendacky , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Dave Hansen , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/coco, x86/sev: Use cpu_feature_enabled() to detect SEV guest flavor Message-ID: <20231205160035.GEZW9JI8eKENXBo6EO@fat_crate.local> References: <20231205143738.2875-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20231205144619.GCZW83uzAomKmupn7j@fat_crate.local> <20231205150012.6lma2wzcellr7pz7@box.shutemov.name> <20231205150648.GDZW88iAjBzYoIJ0+o@fat_crate.local> <20231205151437.aqmuydosfmnq3zr4@box.shutemov.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20231205151437.aqmuydosfmnq3zr4@box.shutemov.name> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 06:14:37PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > My point is that if you need to check for SEV you need to check SEV, not > CC_ATTR. CC_ATTRs only make sense in generic code that deals with multiple > CoCo environments. That makes more sense. So that commit already says "If future support is added for other memory encryption technologies, the use of CC_ATTR_GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT can be updated, as required." And what this test needs to do is to check: if (guest type >= SEV) meaning SEV and -ES and -SNP. I'm wondering if we should export amd_cc_platform_has() for such cases... The logic being, we're calling a SEV-specific function so using cc_platform_has() in there is the wrong layer. Tom? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette