C-WCOW: Unify data structures and reuse for C-LCOW and C-WCOW #2544
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Member
MahatiC
commented
Oct 28, 2025
MahatiC
commented
- This change repurposes existing data structures and uses them for both C-LCOW and C-WCOW
MahatiC
force-pushed
the
refactoring-confidential
branch
from
7f5ca46 to
fa8bfb1
Compare
KenGordon
reviewed
Oct 29, 2025
KenGordon
reviewed
Oct 29, 2025
MahatiC
force-pushed
the
refactoring-confidential
branch
from
fa8bfb1 to
8d14576
Compare
KenGordon
reviewed
Oct 29, 2025
ambarve
reviewed
Oct 29, 2025
ambarve
reviewed
Oct 29, 2025
MahatiC
force-pushed
the
refactoring-confidential
branch
3 times, most recently
from
990fe18 to
8cfcea8
Compare
MahatiC
force-pushed
the
refactoring-confidential
branch
3 times, most recently
from
5d6a794 to
309345c
Compare
KenGordon
reviewed
Nov 6, 2025
|
|
||
| // validateHostData fetches SNP report (if applicable) and validates `hostData` against | ||
| // HostData set at UVM launch. | ||
| func validateHostData(hostData []byte) error { |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This code and the code in the windows version are functionally equivalent. I suspect the main difference is the amdsevsnp vs PsPDriver as the owner of the PSP device. Can we get that behind an abstraction so this code is actually the same concrete function?
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
They are already abstracted and call their respective driver functions (which are OS specific) though.
KenGordon
reviewed
Nov 6, 2025
| "github.com/sirupsen/logrus" | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| type SecurityOptions struct { |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are these really options? Or are they things that were previous stuffed into the Options object kind of on the cheap back in the mists of time?
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure I understand this?
Signed-off-by: Mahati Chamarthy <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Mahati Chamarthy <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Mahati Chamarthy <[email protected]>
Move inject and load fragment into the securitypolicy pkg Signed-off-by: Mahati Chamarthy <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Mahati Chamarthy <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Mahati Chamarthy <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Mahati Chamarthy <[email protected]>
MahatiC
force-pushed
the
refactoring-confidential
branch
from
309345c to
da9c178
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.