On 2/27/24 12:14, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024, John Allen wrote:Rename SEV-ES save area SSP fields to be consistent with the APM. Signed-off-by: John Allen <john.allen@xxxxxxx> --- arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h index 87a7b917d30e..728c98175b9c 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h @@ -358,10 +358,10 @@ struct sev_es_save_area { struct vmcb_seg ldtr; struct vmcb_seg idtr; struct vmcb_seg tr; - u64 vmpl0_ssp; - u64 vmpl1_ssp; - u64 vmpl2_ssp; - u64 vmpl3_ssp; + u64 pl0_ssp; + u64 pl1_ssp; + u64 pl2_ssp; + u64 pl3_ssp;Are these CPL fields, or VMPL fields? Presumably it's the former since this is a single save area. If so, the changelog should call that out, i.e. make it clear that the current names are outright bugs. If these somehow really are VMPL fields, I would prefer to diverge from the APM, because pl[0..3] is way to ambiguous in that case.
Definitely not VMPL fields... I guess I had VMPL levels on my mind when I was typing those names.
Thanks, Tom
It's borderline if they're CPL fields, but Intel calls them PL[0..3]_SSP, so I'm much less inclined to diverge from two other things in that case.
