linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/25] KVM: TDX: Define TDX architectural definitions

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4de6d1fa5f72274af51d063dc17726625de535ac.camel@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 19:46:00 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "Li, Xiaoyao" <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org"
	<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
	"sean.j.christopherson@...el.com" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
	"tony.lindgren@...ux.intel.com" <tony.lindgren@...ux.intel.com>, "Huang, Kai"
	<kai.huang@...el.com>, "isaku.yamahata@...il.com" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/25] KVM: TDX: Define TDX architectural definitions

On Thu, 2024-08-29 at 21:25 +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> On 8/13/2024 6:47 AM, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * TD_PARAMS is provided as an input to TDH_MNG_INIT, the size of which is
> > 1024B.
> > + */
> > +struct td_params {
> > +       u64 attributes;
> > +       u64 xfam;
> > +       u16 max_vcpus;
> > +       u8 reserved0[6];
> > +
> > +       u64 eptp_controls;
> > +       u64 exec_controls;
> 
> TDX 1.5 renames 'exec_controls' to 'config_flags', maybe we need update 
> it to match TDX 1.5 since the minimum supported TDX module of linux 
> starts from 1.5.

Agreed.

> 
> Besides, TDX 1.5 defines more fields that was reserved in TDX 1.0, but 
> most of them are not used by current TDX enabling patches. If we update 
> TD_PARAMS to match with TDX 1.5, should we add them as well?

You mean config_flags or supported "features0"? For config_flags, it seems just
one is missing. I don't think we need to add it.

> 
> This leads to another topic that defining all the TDX structure in this 
> patch seems unfriendly for review. It seems better to put the 
> introduction of definition and its user in a single patch.

Yea.