[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56a62e54-59f7-4423-9f01-4472d5c3815d@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 08:02:15 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>
Cc: linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, reinette.chatre@...el.com,
ira.weiny@...el.com, kai.huang@...el.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
yilun.xu@...ux.intel.com, sagis@...gle.com, vannapurve@...gle.com,
paulmck@...nel.org, nik.borisov@...e.com, zhenzhong.duan@...el.com,
seanjc@...gle.com, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, kas@...nel.org,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, vishal.l.verma@...el.com,
Farrah Chen <farrah.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/26] coco/tdx-host: Expose P-SEAMLDR information via
sysfs
On 1/30/26 06:44, Chao Gao wrote:
>>> +What: /sys/devices/faux/tdx_host/seamldr/num_remaining_updates
>>> +Contact: linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev
>>> +Description: (RO) Report the number of remaining updates that can be performed.
>>> + The CPU keeps track of TCB versions for each TDX Module that
>>> + has been loaded. Since this tracking database has finite
>>> + capacity, there's a maximum number of Module updates that can
>>> + be performed.
>>
>> Is it really the CPU? Or some SEAM software construct?
>
> It is the CPU. The CPU provides the database and gives instructions to
> P-SEAMLDR for adding records or cleaning up the entire database.
Either way, it's an implementation detail that doesn't need to be
litigated in the OS ABI docs.
TDX maintains a log about each TDX module which has been loaded.
This log has a finite size which limits the number of TDX module
updates which can be performed.
Report the number of updates remaining.
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_TDX_MODULE_UPDATE
...
> /facepalm. Sorry for missing these important considerations.
>
> I overlooked a critical constraint: only one CPU can call P-SEAMLDR at a time;
> any second CPU gets VMFailInvalid. Patch 19 adds a lock for SEAMLDR.INSTALL
> serialization, but we actually need to serialize all P-SEAMLDR calls or handle
> VMFailInvalid with retries.
>
> I will make the following changes to see how they look:
>
> 1. Move the lock from patch 19 to seamldr_call() to serialize all P-SEAMLDR calls
Ack, yes, this is obviously required.
> 2. Cache seamldr_info and only update it after successful updates
> 3. Make seamldr_get_info() return cached data instead of calling P-SEAMLDR every time
To be honest, I'm not sure we need a cache. Why don't we just make the
permissions 400 and keep the info structure on the stack?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists