[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1057bbfe-c73e-a182-7696-afc59a4786d8@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 21:25:44 +0800
From: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>
To: Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
"Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Connor Kuehl <ckuehl@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
isaku.yamahata@...il.com,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Kai Huang <kai.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 05/69] KVM: TDX: Add architectural definitions for
structures and values
On 7/31/2021 9:04 AM, Erdem Aktas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 3:05 PM <isaku.yamahata@...el.com> wrote:
>> +/* Management class fields */
>> +enum tdx_guest_management {
>> + TD_VCPU_PEND_NMI = 11,
>> +};
>> +
>> +/* @field is any of enum tdx_guest_management */
>> +#define TDVPS_MANAGEMENT(field) BUILD_TDX_FIELD(32, (field))
>
> I am a little confused with this. According to the spec, PEND_NMI has
> a field code of 0x200000000000000B
> I can understand that 0x20 is the class code and the PEND_NMI field code is 0xB.
> On the other hand, for the LAST_EXIT_TSC the field code is 0xA00000000000000A.
> Based on your code and the table in the spec, I can see that there is
> an additional mask (1ULL<<63) for readonly fields
No. bit 63 is not for readonly fields, but for non_arch fields.
Please see 18.7.1 General definition
> Is this information correct and is this included in the spec? I tried
> to find it but somehow I do not see it clearly defined.
>
>> +#define TDX1_NR_TDCX_PAGES 4
>> +#define TDX1_NR_TDVPX_PAGES 5
>> +
>> +#define TDX1_MAX_NR_CPUID_CONFIGS 6
> Why is this just 6? I am looking at the CPUID table in the spec and
> there are already more than 6 CPUID leaves there.
This is the number of CPUID config reported by TDH.SYS.INFO. Current KVM
only reports 6 leaves.
>> +#define TDX1_MAX_NR_CMRS 32
>> +#define TDX1_MAX_NR_TDMRS 64
>> +#define TDX1_MAX_NR_RSVD_AREAS 16
>> +#define TDX1_PAMT_ENTRY_SIZE 16
>> +#define TDX1_EXTENDMR_CHUNKSIZE 256
>
> I believe all of the defined variables above need to be enumerated
> with TDH.SYS.INFO.
No. Only TDX1_MAX_NR_TDMRS, TDX1_MAX_NR_RSVD_AREAS and
TDX1_PAMT_ENTRY_SIZE can be enumerated from TDH.SYS.INFO.
- TDX1_MAX_NR_CMRS is described in 18.6.3 CMR_INFO, which tells
TDH.SYS.INFO leaf function returns a MAX_CMRS(32) entry array
of CMR_INFO entries.
- TDX1_EXTENDMR_CHUNKSIZE is describe in 20.2.23 TDH.MR.EXTEND
>> +#define TDX_TDMR_ADDR_ALIGNMENT 512
> Is TDX_TDMR_ADDR_ALIGNMENT used anywhere or is it just for completeness?
It's the leftover during rebase. We will clean it up.
>> +#define TDX_TDMR_INFO_ALIGNMENT 512
> Why do we have alignment of 512, I am assuming to make it cache line
> size aligned for efficiency?
It should be leftover too.
SEAMCALL TDH.SYS.INFO requires each cmr info in CMR_INFO_ARRAY to be
512B aligned
>
>> +#define TDX_TDSYSINFO_STRUCT_ALIGNEMNT 1024
>
> typo: ALIGNEMNT -> ALIGNMENT
>
> -Erdem
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists