Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of amd.com designates
 165.204.84.17 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=165.204.84.17; helo=SATLEXMB03.amd.com;
Date:   Wed, 5 Jan 2022 16:32:45 -0600
From:   Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
CC:     <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <x86@kernel.org>,
        Nathan Tempelman <natet@google.com>,
        Marc Orr <marcorr@google.com>,
        Steve Rutherford <srutherford@google.com>,
        Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@suse.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
        Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Janosch Frank" <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        "Claudio Imbrenda" <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
        "Suzuki K Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] KVM: selftests: Add support for
 test-selectable ucall implementations
Message-ID: <20220105223245.2qebwfphyf2t43ni@amd.com>
References: <20211210164620.11636-1-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <Yc4gcJdhxthBKUUd@google.com>
 <20220104233517.kxjbdw4t7taymab5@amd.com>
 <YdTjnRZQID5IabK0@google.com>
 <20220105170244.jwr6i2erecbhx3fz@amd.com>
 <YdXYuaoXJux6lHrF@google.com>
 <20220105191107.qx67wf2coc3q6giu@amd.com>
 <YdX0SRoBXReggrVA@google.com>
 <20220105213519.g746jzf756nax562@amd.com>
 <YdYVjfMqf+GjsU+p@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YdYVjfMqf+GjsU+p@google.com>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jan 2022 22:33:22.0157
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 2f6923fe-8589-4b0b-c689-08d9d09b6160
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d;Ip=[165.204.84.17];Helo=[SATLEXMB03.amd.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CO1NAM11FT054.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR12MB1125
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 10:02:53PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2022, Michael Roth wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 07:40:57PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > As for ucall_init(), I think the best approach would be to make kvm_vm_elf_load()
> > > a static and replace all calls with:
> > > 
> > > 	kvm_vm_load_guest(vm);
> > > 
> > > where its implementation is:
> > > 
> > >   void kvm_vm_load_guest(struct kvm_vm *vm)
> > >   {
> > >   	kvm_vm_elf_load(vm, program_invocation_name);
> > > 
> > > 	ucall_init(vm);
> > >   }
> > > 
> > > The logic being that if a test creates a VM but never loads any code into the guest,
> > > e.g. kvm_create_max_vcpus, then it _can't_ make ucalls.
> > 
> > Makes sense. And if different ops are needed for vmgexit()/tdcall() it
> > could be something like (if based on patches 1-5 of this series, and
> > extending vm_guest_mode as you suggested earlier):
> > 
> >    void kvm_vm_load_guest(struct kvm_vm *vm)
> >    {
> > 
> >      kvm_vm_elf_load(vm, program_invocation_name);
> >   
> >      if (vm->mode == VM_MODE_SEV)
> >   	    ucall_init_ops(vm, ucall_ops_pio_vmgexit);
> >      else (vm->vm_type == VM_MODE_TDX)
> 
> I don't think we want to do this here, but instead down in the arch-specific
> ucall_init().  Also, not sure if I was clear before (can't tell what you interpreted
> based on the above snippet), but I think we'll want VM_MODE_SEV etc... to be
> modifiers on top of the VA/PA stuff.

Ok, something like this (with additional ones added as-needed)?

  #define VM_MODE_DEFAULT VM_MODE_PXXV48_4K
  +#define SEV_VM_MODE_DEFAULT SEV_VM_MODE_PXXV48_4K

  enum vm_guest_mode {
    ...
    VM_MODE_PXXV48_4K,
    ...
    NUM_VM_MODES,
  + SEV_VM_MODE_PXXV48_4K,
  + NUM_VM_MODES_EXTENDED,
  }

> 
> >   	    ucall_init_ops(vm, ucall_ops_pio_tdcall);
> >      else
> >   	    ucall_init_ops(vm, ucall_ops_pio);
> > 
> > Shame we have to update all the kvm_vm_elf_load() call-sites, but
> > they'd end up potentially breaking things if left as-is anyway.
> > 
> > Were you planning on sending patches for these changes, or should I incorporate
> > your prototype and take a stab at the other changes as part of v2 of this
> > series?
> 
> Nope, all yours.  Thanks!

Thanks for the suggestions!