On 9/14/22 4:36 AM, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 9/9/22 12:27, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote: >> >> arch/x86/coco/tdx/tdx.c | 115 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/tdx.h | 56 ++++++++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 171 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/tdx.h > > The SEV equivalent of this in in: > > drivers/virt/coco/sev-guest/sev-guest.c > > right? > > Why did you choose a different location? Also, can you please study the When we initially submitted the attestation patches, virt/coco folder was not created. I initially kept this driver in platform/x86/, but later moved to arch/x86/coco based on the review comments in v4. There was a discussion about the need for a new config and the location of the driver. The outcome of that discussion is, since this is not a traditional driver, but a basic TDX feature, we don't need a special config and the code can be maintained in the arch/x86/coco folder. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YmEfgn7fMcZ2oCnr@xxxxxxx/ > SEV implementation a bit? It might help you find problems like the > ioctl() return code issue. The SEV driver appears to have gotten that > right. Ok. -- Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy Linux Kernel Developer
