Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     bp@alien8.de, aarcange@redhat.com, ak@linux.intel.com,
        dan.j.williams@intel.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, david@redhat.com,
        hpa@zytor.com, jgross@suse.com, jmattson@google.com,
        joro@8bytes.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com, knsathya@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, luto@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, sdeep@vmware.com,
        seanjc@google.com, tony.luck@intel.com, vkuznets@redhat.com,
        wanpengli@tencent.com, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2.1 05/29] x86/tdx: Add HLT support for TDX guests
In-Reply-To: <20220202124830.yd4vkmy56j67tyz4@black.fi.intel.com>
References: <YfVU01dBD36H0EIv@zn.tnic>
 <20220129223021.29417-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <874k5iz3ih.ffs@tglx> <20220202124830.yd4vkmy56j67tyz4@black.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 02 Feb 2022 18:17:08 +0100
Message-ID: <875ypxur1n.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 02 2022 at 15:48, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 10:21:58PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 30 2022 at 01:30, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> This really can be simplified:
>> 
>>         cmpl	$EXIT_REASON_SAFE_HLT, %r11d
>>         jne	.Lnohalt
>>         movl	$EXIT_REASON_HLT, %r11d
>>         sti
>> .Lnohalt:
>> 	tdcall
>> 
>> and the below becomes:
>> 
>> static bool tdx_halt(void)
>> {
>> 	return !!__tdx_hypercall(EXIT_REASON_HLT, !!irqs_disabled(), 0, 0, 0, NULL);
>> }
>> 
>> void __cpuidle tdx_safe_halt(void)
>> {
>>         if (__tdx_hypercall(EXIT_REASON_SAFE_HLT, 0, 0, 0, 0, NULL)
>>         	WARN_ONCE(1, "HLT instruction emulation failed\n");
>> }
>> 
>> Hmm?
>
> EXIT_REASON_* are architectural, see SDM vol 3D, appendix C. There's no
> EXIT_REASON_SAFE_HLT.
>
> Do you want to define a synthetic one? Like
>
> #define EXIT_REASON_SAFE_HLT	0x10000
> ?

That was my idea, yes.

> Looks dubious to me, I donno. I worry about possible conflicts with the
> spec in the future.

The spec should have a reserved space for such things :)

But you might think about having a in/out struct similar to the module
call or just an array of u64.

and the signature would become:

__tdx_hypercall(u64 op, u64 flags, struct inout *args)
__tdx_hypercall(u64 op, u64 flags, u64 *args)

and have flag bits:

    HCALL_ISSUE_STI
    HCALL_HAS_OUTPUT

Hmm?

Thanks,

        tglx