On 9/16/21 8:02 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 10:26:06AM -0700, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
I have a Intel variant patch (please check following patch). But it includes
TDX changes as well. Shall I move TDX changes to different patch and just
create a separate
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 10:26:06AM -0700, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> I have a Intel variant patch (please check following patch). But it includes
> TDX changes as well. Shall I move TDX changes to different patch and just
> create a separate patch for adding intel_cc_platform_has()?
On 9/15/21 9:46 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Sathya,
if you want to prepare the Intel variant intel_cc_platform_has() ontop
of those and send it to me, that would be good because then I can
integrate it all in one branch which can be used to base future work
ontop.
I have a Intel variant
On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 05:58:31PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> This patch series provides a generic helper function, cc_platform_has(),
> to replace the sme_active(), sev_active(), sev_es_active() and
> mem_encrypt_active() functions.
>
> It is expected that as new confidential computing
On 9/9/21 2:32 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
On 09.09.21 00:58, Tom Lendacky wrote:
This patch series provides a generic helper function, cc_platform_has(),
to replace the sme_active(), sev_active(), sev_es_active() and
mem_encrypt_active() functions.
It is expected that as new
On 09.09.21 00:58, Tom Lendacky wrote:
This patch series provides a generic helper function, cc_platform_has(),
to replace the sme_active(), sev_active(), sev_es_active() and
mem_encrypt_active() functions.
It is expected that as new confidential computing technologies are
added to the
This patch series provides a generic helper function, cc_platform_has(),
to replace the sme_active(), sev_active(), sev_es_active() and
mem_encrypt_active() functions.
It is expected that as new confidential computing technologies are
added to the kernel, they can all be covered by a single
