Subject: Re: [Patch v3 07/14] x86/hyperv: Change vTOM handling to use standard coco mechanisms

From: Borislav Petkov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 17:33:37 +0100

On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 02:38:11PM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> Any further comment on this patch?  I think we're agreement.  For
> this patch series I propose to change the symbol "CC_VENDOR_HYPERV"
> to "CC_VENDOR_AMD_VTOM" and the function name
> hyperv_cc_platform_has() to amd_vtom_cc_platform_has().

That doesn't sound optimal to me.

So, let's clarify things first: those Isolation VMs - are they going to
be the paravisors?

I don't see any other option because the unmodified guest must be some
old windoze....

So, if they're going to be that, then I guess this should be called

	CC_ATTR_PARAVISOR

to denote that it is a thin layer of virt gunk between an unmodified
guest and a hypervisor.

And if TDX wants to do that too later, then they can use that flag too.

Yes, no?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette