[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <85b0ce940836b54813c07ff4a8215bb9eb9e4a13.camel@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2023 22:58:12 +0000
From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
CC: "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
"sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
"n.borisov.lkml@...il.com" <n.borisov.lkml@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/12] x86/tdx: Extend TDX_MODULE_CALL to support more
TDCALL/SEAMCALL leafs
On Thu, 2023-07-27 at 19:50 +0300, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 11:25:08PM +1200, Kai Huang wrote:
> > @@ -64,6 +103,37 @@
> > .endif
> >
> > .if \ret
> > +.if \saved
> > + /*
> > + * Restore the structure from stack to save the output registers
> > + *
> > + * In case of VP.ENTER returns due to TDVMCALL, all registers are
> > + * valid thus no register can be used as spare to restore the
> > + * structure from the stack (see "TDH.VP.ENTER Output Operands
> > + * Definition on TDCALL(TDG.VP.VMCALL) Following a TD Entry").
> > + * For this case, need to make one register as spare by saving it
> > + * to the stack and then manually load the structure pointer to
> > + * the spare register.
> > + *
> > + * Note for other TDCALLs/SEAMCALLs there are spare registers
> > + * thus no need for such hack but just use this for all.
> > + */
> > + pushq %rax /* save the TDCALL/SEAMCALL return code */
> > + movq 8(%rsp), %rax /* restore the structure pointer */
> > + movq %rsi, TDX_MODULE_rsi(%rax) /* save %rsi */
> > + movq %rax, %rsi /* use %rsi as structure pointer */
>
> This looks redundant. You get struct in RSI with popq two lines below.
Yes I guess so. Will remove and have a test.
>
> And please use upper case for registers: RSI instead of %rsi.
In the comments? Will do.
>
> > + popq %rax /* restore the return code */
> > + popq %rsi /* pop the structure pointer */
> > +
> > + /* Copy additional output regs to the structure */
> > + movq %r12, TDX_MODULE_r12(%rsi)
> > + movq %r13, TDX_MODULE_r13(%rsi)
> > + movq %r14, TDX_MODULE_r14(%rsi)
> > + movq %r15, TDX_MODULE_r15(%rsi)
> > + movq %rbx, TDX_MODULE_rbx(%rsi)
> > + movq %rdi, TDX_MODULE_rdi(%rsi)
> > +.endif /* \saved */
> > +
> > /* Copy output registers to the structure */
> > movq %rcx, TDX_MODULE_rcx(%rsi)
> > movq %rdx, TDX_MODULE_rdx(%rsi)
>
> Otherwise, looks sane:
>
> Reviewed-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
>
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists