On 5/24/21 9:20 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 24/05/21 15:58, Tom Lendacky wrote: >>> Would it hurt if we just move 'vcpu->arch.guest_state_protected' check >>> to is_64_bit_mode() itself? It seems to be too easy to miss this >>> peculiar detail about SEV in review if new is_64_bit_mode() users are to >>> be added. >> I thought about that, but wondered if is_64_bit_mode() was to be used in >> other places in the future, if it would be a concern. I think it would be >> safe since anyone adding it to a new section of code is likely to look at >> what that function is doing first. >> >> I'm ok with this. Paolo, I know you already queued this, but would you >> prefer moving the check into is_64_bit_mode()? > > Let's introduce a new wrapper is_64_bit_hypercall, and add a > WARN_ON_ONCE(vcpu->arch.guest_state_protected) to is_64_bit_mode. Will do. Thanks, Tom > > Paolo >
