On 6/5/2023 8:09 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c @@ -402,8 +402,12 @@ static void __init ms_hyperv_init_platform(void) pr_info("Hyper-V: Isolation Config: Group A 0x%x, Group B 0x%x\n", ms_hyperv.isolation_config_a, ms_hyperv.isolation_config_b);- if (hv_get_isolation_type() == HV_ISOLATION_TYPE_SNP)+ + if (cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_GUEST_SEV_SNP)) { + static_branch_enable(&isolation_type_en_snp); + } else if (hv_get_isolation_type() == HV_ISOLATION_TYPE_SNP) { static_branch_enable(&isolation_type_snp);Nitpick: In case 'isolation_type_snp' and 'isolation_type_en_snp' are mutually exclusive, I'd suggest we rename the former: it is quite un-intuitive that for an enlightened SNP guest '&isolation_type_snp' is NOT enabled. E.g. we can use 'isol_type_snp_paravisor' and 'isol_type_snp_enlightened' (I also don't like 'isolation_type_en_snp' name as 'en' normally stands for 'enabled')
Hi Vitaly: Thanks for your review. Agree. Will rename them.
--- a/include/asm-generic/mshyperv.h +++ b/include/asm-generic/mshyperv.h @@ -36,15 +36,21 @@ struct ms_hyperv_info { u32 nested_features; u32 max_vp_index; u32 max_lp_index; - u32 isolation_config_a; + union { + u32 isolation_config_a; + struct { + u32 paravisor_present : 1; + u32 reserved1 : 31; + }; + }; union { u32 isolation_config_b; struct { u32 cvm_type : 4; - u32 reserved1 : 1; + u32 reserved2 : 1; u32 shared_gpa_boundary_active : 1; u32 shared_gpa_boundary_bits : 6; - u32 reserved2 : 20; + u32 reserved3 : 20;Maybe use 'reserved_a1', 'reserved_b1', 'reserved_b2',... to avoid the need to rename in the future when more bits from isolation_config_a get used?
Good suggestion. will update.
