[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CF87BC4-E8C8-4584-A275-5A985D5A18A1@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:28:58 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Alexey Makhalov <alexey.makhalov@...adcom.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, mingo@...hat.com,
tglx@...utronix.de
CC: x86@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, richardcochran@...il.com,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
zackr@...are.com, linux-graphics-maintainer@...are.com,
pv-drivers@...are.com, namit@...are.com, timothym@...are.com,
akaher@...are.com, jsipek@...are.com, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
daniel@...ll.ch, airlied@...il.com, tzimmermann@...e.de,
mripard@...nel.org, maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com,
horms@...nel.org, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 7/7] x86/vmware: Add TDX hypercall support
On January 22, 2024 8:32:22 AM PST, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>On 1/9/24 00:40, Alexey Makhalov wrote:
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_TDX_GUEST
>> +unsigned long vmware_tdx_hypercall(unsigned long cmd,
>> + struct tdx_module_args *args)
>> +{
>> + if (!hypervisor_is_type(X86_HYPER_VMWARE))
>> + return ULONG_MAX;
>> +
>> + if (cmd & ~VMWARE_CMD_MASK) {
>> + pr_warn_once("Out of range command %lx\n", cmd);
>> + return ULONG_MAX;
>> + }
>> +
>> + args->r10 = VMWARE_TDX_VENDOR_LEAF;
>> + args->r11 = VMWARE_TDX_HCALL_FUNC;
>> + args->r12 = VMWARE_HYPERVISOR_MAGIC;
>> + args->r13 = cmd;
>> + args->r15 = 0; /* CPL */
>> +
>> + __tdx_hypercall(args);
>> +
>> + return args->r12;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vmware_tdx_hypercall);
>> +#endif
>
>This is the kind of wrapper that I was hoping for. Thanks.
>
>Acked-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
>
I'm slightly confused by this TBH.
Why are the arguments passed in as a structure, which is modified by the wrapper to boot? This is analogous to a system call interface.
Furthermore, this is an out-of-line function; it should never be called with !X86_HYPER_VMWARE or you are introducing overhead for other hypervisors; I believe a pr_warn_once() is in order at least, just as you have for the out-of-range test.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists