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:   Fri, 13 Aug 2021 16:56:48 +0200
From:   Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@suse.com>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@suse.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86: Impplement support for unaccepted memory
Message-ID: <YRaIMEp/mTLbt++E@suse.de>
References: <20210810062626.1012-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <YRTafEovVZme+KO9@suse.de>
 <20210812101054.5y6oufwwnisebuyy@box.shutemov.name>
 <e72e34b5-a232-6dc9-0cdb-cc8c97783772@linux.intel.com>
 <20210812202251.hn3c2xykm2l73avu@box.shutemov.name>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210812202251.hn3c2xykm2l73avu@box.shutemov.name>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 11:22:51PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 12:33:11PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I think Joerg's question was if TDX has a single ABI for all hypervisors.
> > The GHCI specification supports both hypervisor specific and hypervisor
> > agnostic calls. But these basic operations like MapGPA are all hypervisor
> > agnostic. The only differences would be in the existing hypervisor specific
> > PV code.
> 
> My point was that TDX and SEV-SNP going to be different and we need a way
> to hook the right protocol for each.

Yeah, okay, thanks for the clarification. My misunderstanding was that
there could be per-hypervisor contract on what memory is pre-accepted
and what Linux is responsible for.

Thanks,

	Joerg