Re: [RFC v2-fix-v2 1/1] x86: Introduce generic protected guest abstractionn

[Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan]

On 6/4/21 3:01 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> >   	 */
> > -	if (sme_active())
> > +	if (protected_guest_has(VM_HOST_MEM_ENCRYPT))
> >   		swiotlb = 1;
> I still feel this is confusing. SME is a host/bare-metal technology, so
> calling protected_guest_has() seems odd and using VM_HOST_MEM_ENCRYPT,
> where I assume VM is short for virtual machine, also seems odd.
>
> How about just protected_os_has()? Then you could have
> - HOST_MEM_ENCRYPT  for host memory encryption
> - GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT for guest memory encryption
> - MEM_ENCRYPT       for either host or guest memory encryption.
>
> The first is analogous to sme_active(), the second to sev_active() and the
> third to mem_encrypt_active(). Just my opinion, though...

I am not sure whether OS makes sense here. But I am fine with it if
it is maintainers choice.

Other option could be protected_boot_has()?

--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer