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;
Date:   Thu, 27 May 2021 16:24:52 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc:     Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@kernel.org>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2-fix-v2 1/1] x86/traps: Add #VE support for TDX guest
Message-ID: <YK/H1CAc24UzPLDs@google.com>
References: <4031ffc2-a442-5da7-e793-ac1053533bb3@linux.intel.com>
 <20210527002931.3632581-1-sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <636067f3ed65429ab1094b851aae5256@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <636067f3ed65429ab1094b851aae5256@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 27, 2021, Luck, Tony wrote:
> +struct ve_info {
> +	u64 exit_reason;
> +	u64 exit_qual;
> +	u64 gla;
> +	u64 gpa;
> +	u32 instr_len;
> +	u32 instr_info;
> +};
> 
> I guess that "gla" = Guest Linear Address ... which is a very "Intel" way of
> describing what everyone else would call a Guest Virtual Address.
> 
> I don't feel strongly about this though. If this has already been hashed
> out already then stick with this name.

The "real" #VE information area that TDX is usurping is an architectural struct
that defines exit_reason, exit_qual, gla, and gpa, and those fields in turn come
directly from their corresponding VMCS fields with longer versions of the same
names, e.g. ve_info->gla is a reflection of vmcs.GUEST_LINEAR_ADDRESS.

So normally I would agree that the "linear" terminology is obnoxious, but in
this specific case I think it's warranted.