From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49196C4338F for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 17:27:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82E7F6023D for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 17:27:01 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 82E7F6023D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=alien8.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4GrBXM3N79z3cMK for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 03:26:59 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=alien8.de header.i=@alien8.de header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=dkim header.b=QQBp8NHu; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=alien8.de (client-ip=5.9.137.197; helo=mail.skyhub.de; envelope-from=bp@alien8.de; receiver=) Received: from mail.skyhub.de (mail.skyhub.de [5.9.137.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4GrBWW04rCz3bXv for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 03:26:09 +1000 (AEST) Received: from zn.tnic (p200300ec2f0f6a00894cffc8901d9ad3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:ec:2f0f:6a00:894c:ffc8:901d:9ad3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id 2D09E1EC04F3; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 19:25:52 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1629393952; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=/gAtsE7QtBH5j9ttL3SuPKWfuXAyQgTTaUQCvmLoufU=; b=QQBp8NHuP+11G06yi7BdGA+HaVdnbkry0TMbR80aBtGTWa+AS2GGnsUl92jeGasIkZJxjG vbA27TU+69/cDt/R71KHjVUhLNS00XEkqnozCdieagZOK0jWv65x9AAvusLIXItaBgTbsA IoE8XMNOekYHfnDaNqS/LMVqj09wsDs= Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 19:26:31 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/12] x86/sev: Add an x86 version of prot_guest_has() Message-ID: References: <7d55bac0cf2e73f53816bce3a3097877ed9663f3.1628873970.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy , linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, Brijesh Singh , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Dave Hansen , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen , Joerg Roedel , x86@kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Ingo Molnar , linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com, Tom Lendacky , Joerg Roedel , Tianyu Lan , Andy Lutomirski , Thomas Gleixner , kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 10:52:53AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Which suggest that the name is not good to start with. Maybe protected > hardware, system or platform might be a better choice? Yah, coming up with a proper name here hasn't been easy. prot_guest_has() is not the first variant. >From all three things you suggest above, I guess calling it a "platform" is the closest. As in, this is a confidential computing platform which provides host and guest facilities etc. So calling it confidential_computing_platform_has() is obviously too long. ccp_has() clashes with the namespace of drivers/crypto/ccp/ which is used by the technology too. coco_platform_has() is too unserious. So I guess cc_platform_has() ain't all that bad. Unless you have a better idea, ofc. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette