Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1619458733.git.sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <0e7e94d1ee4bae49dfd0dd441dc4f2ab6df76668.1619458733.git.sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <CAPcyv4jPLGs6p0PNZQB6yKB3QDtEcGb234zcgCbJutXxZZEGnA@mail.gmail.com> <6ea92e98-a243-ef7c-4263-bafb8946feef@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <6ea92e98-a243-ef7c-4263-bafb8946feef@intel.com>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 May 2021 08:43:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4hiSiW8V2G70UpmYiN1DHJ1jXz98-5Wp=s5TMPBgC5dNA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 14/32] x86/tdx: Handle port I/O
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@kernel.org>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 8:36 AM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/10/21 2:57 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> Decompression code uses port IO for earlyprintk. We must use
> >> paravirt calls there too if we want to allow earlyprintk.
> > What is the tradeoff between teaching the decompression code to handle
> > #VE (the implied assumption) vs teaching it to avoid #VE with direct
> > TDVMCALLs (the chosen direction)?
>
> To me, the tradeoff is not just "teaching" the code to handle a #VE, but
> ensuring that the entire architecture works.
>
> Intentionally invoking a #VE is like making a function call that *MIGHT*
> recurse on itself.  Sure, you can try to come up with a story about
> bounding the recursion.  But, I don't see any semblance of that in this
> series.
>
> Exception-based recursion is really nasty because it's implicit, not
> explicit.  That's why I'm advocating for a design where the kernel never
> intentionally causes a #VE: it never intentionally recurses without bounds.

Thanks Dave, this really helps.