Thank you Kazuhito san.
I will check the mentioned source.
Manty
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 2:43 PM HAGIO KAZUHITO(萩尾 一仁)
wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
> > Hi kazuhito san,
> >
> > Just following up on my last email.
> > Sincere apologies for asking for your time.
> > I want to
Am 28.07.21 um 00:26 schrieb Tom Lendacky:
This patch series provides a generic helper function, prot_guest_has(),
to replace the sme_active(), sev_active(), sev_es_active() and
mem_encrypt_active() functions.
It is expected that as new protected virtualization technologies are
added to the
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 05:26:05PM -0500, Tom Lendacky via iommu wrote:
> Introduce an x86 version of the prot_guest_has() function. This will be
> used in the more generic x86 code to replace vendor specific calls like
> sev_active(), etc.
>
> While the name suggests this is intended mainly for
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
