[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230608132127.GK998233@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2023 15:21:27 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Tianyu Lan <ltykernel@...il.com>
Cc: kys@...rosoft.com, haiyangz@...rosoft.com, wei.liu@...nel.org,
decui@...rosoft.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
hpa@...or.com, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, arnd@...db.de,
michael.h.kelley@...rosoft.com, Tianyu Lan <tiala@...rosoft.com>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vkuznets@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] x86/hyperv: Use vmmcall to implement Hyper-V
hypercall in sev-snp enlightened guest
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 11:16:18AM -0400, Tianyu Lan wrote:
> From: Tianyu Lan <tiala@...rosoft.com>
>
> In sev-snp enlightened guest, Hyper-V hypercall needs
> to use vmmcall to trigger vmexit and notify hypervisor
> to handle hypercall request.
>
> There is no x86 SEV SNP feature flag support so far and
> hardware provides MSR_AMD64_SEV register to check SEV-SNP
> capability with MSR_AMD64_SEV_ENABLED bit. ALTERNATIVE can't
> work without SEV-SNP x86 feature flag. May add later when
> the associated flag is introduced.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tianyu Lan <tiala@...rosoft.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/mshyperv.h | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mshyperv.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mshyperv.h
> index 31c476f4e656..d859d7c5f5e8 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mshyperv.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mshyperv.h
> @@ -61,16 +61,25 @@ static inline u64 hv_do_hypercall(u64 control, void *input, void *output)
> u64 hv_status;
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> - if (!hv_hypercall_pg)
> - return U64_MAX;
> + if (hv_isolation_type_en_snp()) {
> + __asm__ __volatile__("mov %4, %%r8\n"
> + "vmmcall"
> + : "=a" (hv_status), ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT,
> + "+c" (control), "+d" (input_address)
> + : "r" (output_address)
> + : "cc", "memory", "r8", "r9", "r10", "r11");
> + } else {
> + if (!hv_hypercall_pg)
> + return U64_MAX;
>
> - __asm__ __volatile__("mov %4, %%r8\n"
> - CALL_NOSPEC
> - : "=a" (hv_status), ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT,
> - "+c" (control), "+d" (input_address)
> - : "r" (output_address),
> - THUNK_TARGET(hv_hypercall_pg)
> - : "cc", "memory", "r8", "r9", "r10", "r11");
> + __asm__ __volatile__("mov %4, %%r8\n"
> + CALL_NOSPEC
> + : "=a" (hv_status), ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT,
> + "+c" (control), "+d" (input_address)
> + : "r" (output_address),
> + THUNK_TARGET(hv_hypercall_pg)
> + : "cc", "memory", "r8", "r9", "r10", "r11");
> + }
> #else
Remains unanswered:
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230516102912.GG2587705%40hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
Would this not generate better code with an alternative?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists