Re: [RFC Part1 PATCH v3 03/17] x86/mm: Secure Encrypted Virtualization (SEV) support

2017-07-27 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:47:32AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote: > If it's made static then the sme_active()/sev_active() inline functions > would need to be turned into functions within the mem_encrypt.c file. So > there's a trade-off to do that, which is the better one? Simple: why do we have

Re: [RFC Part1 PATCH v3 03/17] x86/mm: Secure Encrypted Virtualization (SEV) support

2017-07-26 Thread Tom Lendacky
On 7/25/2017 11:28 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 02:07:43PM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote: From: Tom Lendacky Provide support for Secure Encyrpted Virtualization (SEV). This initial Your subject misses a verb and patch subjects should have an

Re: [RFC Part1 PATCH v3 03/17] x86/mm: Secure Encrypted Virtualization (SEV) support

2017-07-25 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 02:07:43PM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote: > From: Tom Lendacky > > Provide support for Secure Encyrpted Virtualization (SEV). This initial Your subject misses a verb and patch subjects should have an active verb denoting what the patch does. The

[RFC Part1 PATCH v3 03/17] x86/mm: Secure Encrypted Virtualization (SEV) support

2017-07-24 Thread Brijesh Singh
From: Tom Lendacky Provide support for Secure Encyrpted Virtualization (SEV). This initial support defines a flag that is used by the kernel to determine if it is running with SEV active. Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky Signed-off-by: Brijesh Singh