On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 02:38:11PM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> Any further comment on this patch? I think we're agreement. For
> this patch series I propose to change the symbol "CC_VENDOR_HYPERV"
> to "CC_VENDOR_AMD_VTOM" and the function name
> hyperv_cc_platform_has() to amd_vtom_cc_platform_has().
That doesn't sound optimal to me.
So, let's clarify things first: those Isolation VMs - are they going to
be the paravisors?
I don't see any other option because the unmodified guest must be some
old windoze....
So, if they're going to be that, then I guess this should be called
CC_ATTR_PARAVISOR
to denote that it is a thin layer of virt gunk between an unmodified
guest and a hypervisor.
And if TDX wants to do that too later, then they can use that flag too.
Yes, no?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
