On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 01:33:09PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote: > I did it as inline originally because the presence of the function will be > decided based on the ARCH_HAS_PROTECTED_GUEST config. For now, that is > only selected by the AMD memory encryption support, so if I went out of > line I could put in mem_encrypt.c. But with TDX wanting to also use it, it > would have to be in an always built file with some #ifdefs or in its own > file that is conditionally built based on the ARCH_HAS_PROTECTED_GUEST > setting (they've already tried building with ARCH_HAS_PROTECTED_GUEST=y > and AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT not set). > > To take it out of line, I'm leaning towards the latter, creating a new > file that is built based on the ARCH_HAS_PROTECTED_GUEST setting. Yes. In general everytime architectures have to provide the prototype and not just the implementation of something we end up with a giant mess sooner or later. In a few cases that is still warranted due to performance concerns, but i don't think that is the case here. > > > > >> +/* 0x800 - 0x8ff reserved for AMD */ > >> +#define PATTR_SME 0x800 > >> +#define PATTR_SEV 0x801 > >> +#define PATTR_SEV_ES 0x802 > > > > Why do we need reservations for a purely in-kernel namespace? > > > > And why are you overoading a brand new generic API with weird details > > of a specific implementation like this? > > There was some talk about this on the mailing list where TDX and SEV may > need to be differentiated, so we wanted to reserve a range of values per > technology. I guess I can remove them until they are actually needed. In that case add a flag for the differing behavior. And only add them when actually needed. And either way there is absolutely no need to reserve ranges. _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
