[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <02e4f583-39dd-cac9-5b51-5fa9ba81b996@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 19:25:44 -0700
From: "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, Deep Shah <sdeep@...are.com>,
VMware Inc <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Peter H Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 11/11] x86/tdx: Handle CPUID via #VE
On 10/6/21 1:26 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 07:52:05PM -0700, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
>> +static u64 tdx_handle_cpuid(struct pt_regs *regs)
>> +{
>> + struct tdx_hypercall_output out = {0};
>> + u64 ret;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Emulate CPUID instruction via hypercall. More info about
>> + * ABI can be found in TDX Guest-Host-Communication Interface
>> + * (GHCI), section titled "VP.VMCALL<Instruction.CPUID>".
>> + */
>> + ret = _tdx_hypercall(EXIT_REASON_CPUID, regs->ax, regs->cx, 0, 0, &out);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * As per TDX GHCI CPUID ABI, r12-r15 registers contains contents of
>> + * EAX, EBX, ECX, EDX registers after CPUID instruction execution.
>> + * So copy the register contents back to pt_regs.
>> + */
>> + regs->ax = out.r12;
>> + regs->bx = out.r13;
>> + regs->cx = out.r14;
>> + regs->dx = out.r15;
>
> Does it still make sense to save the regs if _tdx_hypercall() returns an
> error?
We don't need to save it in failure case. I will add check for error
case in next version.
>
>> +
>> + return ret;
>
> Also I'm wondering about error handling for all these _tdx_hypercall()
> wrapper functions which are called by the #VE handler. >
> First, there are some inconsistencies in whether and how they return the
> r10 error.
Since we have only cared about zero/non-zero return value, we did not
check for consistency. May be I can convert all handler return values
to bool.
>
> - _tdx_halt() warns and doesn't return anything.
Since tdx_halt handler is shared with pv_ops, we can't return anything
back (so we use WARN_ON to report the error).
>
> - tdx_read_msr_safe() and tdx_write_msr_safe() convert all errors to -EIO.
Return value does not matter. we only check for zero/non-zero value in
tdx_handle_virtualization_exception(). we have used -EIO to convey that it is
an IO error.
>
> - tdx_handle_cpuid() returns the raw vmcall error.
>
> Second, as far as I can tell, the #VE handler doesn't check the actual
> return code value, other than checking for non-zero. Should it at least
> be printed in a warning?
I don't think this is required. We can use trace to check the error code
or argument details in failure case. Since we don't really use the error
value, I am planning to change the #VE handler return type to bool.
>
--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists