Re: [PATCH 06/25] x86/cpu/intel: Allow SGX virtualization without Launch Control support

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

 



On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 06:29:57PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 10:45:02PM +1300, Kai Huang wrote:
> > From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > The kernel will currently disable all SGX support if the hardware does
> > not support launch control.  Make it more permissive to allow SGX
> > virtualization on systems without Launch Control support.  This will
> > allow KVM to expose SGX to guests that have less-strict requirements on
> > the availability of flexible launch control.
> > 
> > Improve error message to distinguish between three cases.  There are two
> > cases where SGX support is completely disabled:
> > 1) SGX has been disabled completely by the BIOS
> > 2) SGX LC is locked by the BIOS.  Bare-metal support is disabled because
> >    of LC unavailability.  SGX virtualization is unavailable (because of
> >    Kconfig).
> > One where it is partially available:
> > 3) SGX LC is locked by the BIOS.  Bare-metal support is disabled because
> >    of LC unavailability.  SGX virtualization is supported.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Co-developed-by: Kai Huang <kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Kai Huang <kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/feat_ctl.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> >  1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/feat_ctl.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/feat_ctl.c
> > index 27533a6e04fa..96c370284913 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/feat_ctl.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/feat_ctl.c
> > @@ -105,7 +105,8 @@ early_param("nosgx", nosgx);
> >  void init_ia32_feat_ctl(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> >  {
> >  	bool tboot = tboot_enabled();
> > -	bool enable_sgx;
> > +	bool enable_sgx_any, enable_sgx_kvm, enable_sgx_driver;
> > +	bool enable_vmx;
> >  	u64 msr;
> 
> The preferred ordering of variable declarations at the beginning of a
> function is reverse fir tree order::
> 
> 	struct long_struct_name *descriptive_name;
> 	unsigned long foo, bar;
> 	unsigned int tmp;
> 	int ret;

IMHO here declaring separate lines would make also sense, given
how long the local variable names are.

 /Jarkko



[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