RE: [PATCH v5 06/14] x86/ioremap: Support hypervisor specified range to map as encrypted

[Michael Kelley (LINUX)]

From: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 11:55 AM
> 
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 07:48:06PM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> > From: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 11:33 AM
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 07:01:25PM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> > > > Unless there are objections, I'll go with CC_ATTR_PARAVISOR_DEVICES,
> > >
> > > What does "DEVICES" mean in this context?
> > >
> > > You need to think about !virt people too who are already confused by the
> > > word "paravisor". :-)
> > >
> >
> > Maybe I misunderstood your previous comment about "Either 1".   We can
> > avoid "PARAVISOR" entirely by going with two attributes:
> 
> No, I'm fine with CC_ATTR_PARAVISOR. Why would you have to have
> CC_ATTR_PARAVISOR_DEVICES? I.e., the string "_DEVICES" appended after
> "PARAVISOR". Isn't CC_ATTR_PARAVISOR enough?
> 

Dave --

In v2 of this patch series, you had concerns about CC_ATTR_PARAVISOR being too
generic. [1]   After some back-and-forth discussion in this thread, Boris is back to
preferring it.   Can you live with CC_ATTR_PARAVISOR?  Just trying to reach
consensus ... 

Michael

[1]   https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hyperv/Y258BO8ohVtVZvSH@liuwe-devbox-debian-v2/T/#m593853d8094453ad3f1a5552dad995ccc6c019b2