Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm: Introduce a function to check for virtualization... | linuxppc-dev

[PATCH 00/11] Implement generic prot_guest_has() helper function · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
[PATCH 01/11] mm: Introduce a function to check for virtualization protection features · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm: Introduce a function to check for virtualization protection features · Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> · 2021-07-28
Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm: Introduce a function to check for virtualization protection features · Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> · 2021-07-28
Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm: Introduce a function to check for virtualization protection features · Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> · 2021-08-02
Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm: Introduce a function to check for virtualization protection features · "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> · 2021-08-11
Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm: Introduce a function to check for virtualization protection features · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-08-11
[PATCH 02/11] x86/sev: Add an x86 version of prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
Re: [PATCH 02/11] x86/sev: Add an x86 version of prot_guest_has() · Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> · 2021-07-28
Re: [PATCH 02/11] x86/sev: Add an x86 version of prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-29
Re: [PATCH 02/11] x86/sev: Add an x86 version of prot_guest_has() · Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> · 2021-08-02
[PATCH 03/11] powerpc/pseries/svm: Add a powerpc version of prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
[PATCH 04/11] x86/sme: Replace occurrences of sme_active() with prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
Re: [PATCH 04/11] x86/sme: Replace occurrences of sme_active() with prot_guest_has() · Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> · 2021-08-02
[PATCH 05/11] x86/sev: Replace occurrences of sev_active() with prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
Re: [PATCH 05/11] x86/sev: Replace occurrences of sev_active() with prot_guest_has() · Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> · 2021-08-02
[PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> · 2021-07-30
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-08-09
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · Christophe Leroy <hidden> · 2021-08-02
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-08-09
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> · 2021-08-10
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-08-10
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> · 2021-08-10
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · Kirill A. Shutemov <hidden> · 2021-08-11
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-08-11
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · Kirill A. Shutemov <hidden> · 2021-08-12
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-08-13
Re: [PATCH 07/11] treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-08-13
[PATCH 06/11] x86/sev: Replace occurrences of sev_es_active() with prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
Re: [PATCH 06/11] x86/sev: Replace occurrences of sev_es_active() with prot_guest_has() · Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> · 2021-08-02
Re: [PATCH 06/11] x86/sev: Replace occurrences of sev_es_active() with prot_guest_has() · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-08-09
Re: [PATCH 06/11] x86/sev: Replace occurrences of sev_es_active() with prot_guest_has() · "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> · 2021-08-09
[PATCH 08/11] mm: Remove the now unused mem_encrypt_active() function · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
Re: [PATCH 08/11] mm: Remove the now unused mem_encrypt_active() function · Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> · 2021-08-02
[PATCH 09/11] x86/sev: Remove the now unused mem_encrypt_active() function · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
Re: [PATCH 09/11] x86/sev: Remove the now unused mem_encrypt_active() function · Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> · 2021-08-02
[PATCH 10/11] powerpc/pseries/svm: Remove the now unused mem_encrypt_active() function · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
[PATCH 11/11] s390/mm: Remove the now unused mem_encrypt_active() function · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
Re: [PATCH 00/11] Implement generic prot_guest_has() helper function · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-07-27
Re: [PATCH 00/11] Implement generic prot_guest_has() helper function · Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com> · 2021-07-28
Re: [PATCH 00/11] Implement generic prot_guest_has() helper function · "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> · 2021-08-09
Re: [PATCH 00/11] Implement generic prot_guest_has() helper function · Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> · 2021-08-09

Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm: Introduce a function to check for virtualization protection features

From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Date: 2021-07-28 16:27:58
Also in: amd-gfx, dri-devel, kexec, kvm, linux-efi, linux-fsdevel, linux-iommu, linux-s390, lkml, platform-driver-x86

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 02:17:27PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

So common checks obviously make sense, but I really hate the stupid
multiplexer.  Having one well-documented helper per feature is much
easier to follow.

We had that in x86 - it was called cpu_has_<xxx> where xxx is the
feature bit. It didn't scale with the sheer amount of feature bits that
kept getting added so we do cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_XXX) now.

The idea behind this is very similar - those protected guest flags
will only grow in the couple of tens range - at least - so having a
multiplexer is a lot simpler, I'd say, than having a couple of tens of
helpers. And those PATTR flags should have good, readable names, btw.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette

`h`	back out one level
`j`	next message in thread
`k`	previous message in thread
`l`	drill in
`Esc`	close help / fold thread tree
`?`	toggle this help