Re: [PATCH v3 0/9] Generalize memory encryption models

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 11:56:49 +0200
David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >>> For now this series covers just AMD SEV and POWER PEF.  I'm hoping it
> >>> can be extended to cover the Intel and s390 mechanisms as well,
> >>> though.    
> >>
> >> The only approach on s390x to not glue command line properties to the
> >> cpu model would be to remove the CPU model feature and replace it by the
> >> command line parameter. But that would, of course, be an incompatible break.  
> > 
> > Yuck.
> > 
> > We still need to provide the cpu feature to the *guest* in any case, no?  
> 
> Yeah, but that could be wired up internally. Wouldn't consider it clean,
> though (I second the "overengineered" above).

Could an internally wired-up cpu feature be introspected? Also, what
happens if new cpu features are introduced that have a dependency on or
a conflict with this one?




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux