[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YaUdr5tL7d+kpsX5@google.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:36:31 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: isaku.yamahata@...el.com, 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>, erdemaktas@...gle.com,
Connor Kuehl <ckuehl@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, isaku.yamahata@...il.com,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 47/59] KVM: TDX: Define TDCALL exit reason
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24 2021 at 16:20, isaku yamahata wrote:
> > From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
> >
> > Define the TDCALL exit reason, which is carved out from the VMX exit
> > reason namespace as the TDCALL exit from TDX guest to TDX-SEAM is really
> > just a VM-Exit.
>
> How is this carved out? What's the value of this word salad?
>
> It's simply a new exit reason. Not more, not less. So what?
The changelog is alluding to the fact that KVM should never directly see a TDCALL
VM-Exit. For TDX, KVM deals only with "returns" from the TDX-Module. The "carved
out" bit is calling out that the transition from SEAM Non-Root (the TDX guest) to
SEAM Root (the TDX Module) is actually a VT-x/VMX VM-Exit, e.g. if TDX were somehow
implemented without relying on VT-x/VMX, then the TDCALL exit reason wouldn't exist.
> > Co-developed-by: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
>
> I'm pretty sure that it does not take two engineers to add a new exit
> reason define, but it takes at least two engineers to come up with a
> convoluted explanation for it.
Nah, just one ;-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists