On 8/11/21 9:53 AM, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> On 7/27/21 3:26 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> diff --git a/include/linux/protected_guest.h
>> b/include/linux/protected_guest.h
>> new file mode 100644
>> index ..f8ed7b72967b
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++
On 7/27/21 3:26 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
diff --git a/include/linux/protected_guest.h b/include/linux/protected_guest.h
new file mode 100644
index ..f8ed7b72967b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/linux/protected_guest.h
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
+/*
+
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 05:26:04PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> In prep for other protected virtualization technologies, introduce a
> generic helper function, prot_guest_has(), that can be used to check
> for specific protection attributes, like memory encryption. This is
> intended to eliminate
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_ where xxx is the
feature
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 05:26:04PM -0500, Tom Lendacky via iommu wrote:
> In prep for other protected virtualization technologies, introduce a
> generic helper function, prot_guest_has(), that can be used to check
> for specific protection attributes, like memory encryption. This is
> intended to
In prep for other protected virtualization technologies, introduce a
generic helper function, prot_guest_has(), that can be used to check
for specific protection attributes, like memory encryption. This is
intended to eliminate having to add multiple technology-specific checks
to the code (e.g. if
