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;
Date:   Wed, 16 Feb 2022 18:48:09 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mingo@redhat.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, luto@kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com,
        aarcange@redhat.com, ak@linux.intel.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
        david@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, jgross@suse.com,
        jmattson@google.com, joro@8bytes.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
        knsathya@kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, sdeep@vmware.com,
        tony.luck@intel.com, vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 00/29] TDX Guest: TDX core support
Message-ID: <20220216154809.w27bt6oi3ql4ssip@black.fi.intel.com>
References: <20220209235613.652f5720cd196331d7a220ec@intel.com>
 <YgOgog9Pb886lfsv@zn.tnic>
 <20220210003033.e57c2925b69bab5cfabf7292@intel.com>
 <YgOoId+vyd1VhIqQ@zn.tnic>
 <20220210004831.03dea501738bee060003d040@intel.com>
 <YgOr6tZjsooJgAi9@zn.tnic>
 <YgPwwI2+16/7jQC4@google.com>
 <YgQR/S67Fqz9PanR@zn.tnic>
 <YgQfGKXOemtXnFau@google.com>
 <YgQl6Uk9rONgv9+F@zn.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YgQl6Uk9rONgv9+F@zn.tnic>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 09:36:57PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> + SEV guys. You can scroll upthread to read up on the context.
> 
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 08:07:52PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Don't forget :-)
> > 
> >   arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c - KVM guest stuff
> 
> I knew I'd miss something, ofc.
> 
> > No objection to omitting "coco".  Though what about using "vmx" and "svm" instead
> > of "tdx" and "sev".
> 
> I'm not dead-set on this but ...
> 
> > We lose the more explicit tie to coco, but it would mirror the
> > sub-directories in arch/x86/kvm/
> 
> ... having them too close in naming to the non-coco stuff, might cause
> confusion when looking at:
> 
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> 
> vs
> 
> arch/x86/virt/vmx/vmx.c
> 
> Instead of having
> 
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> 
> and
> 
> arch/x86/virt/tdx/vmx.c
> 
> That second version differs just the right amount. :-)
> 
> > and would avoid a mess in the scenario where tdx
> > or sev needs to share code with the non-coco side, e.g. I'm guessing TDX will need
> > to do VMXON.
> > 
> >   arch/x86/virt/vmx/
> >   	tdx.c
> > 	vmx.c
> > 
> >   arch/x86/virt/svm/
> >   	sev.c
> > 	sev-es.c
> > 	sev-snp.c
> >   	svm.c
> 
> That will probably be two files too: sev.c and svm.c
> 
> But let's see what the other folks think first...

So, any conclusion?

I want to understand where to land TDX guest code and host-guest shared TDX code.
Host-guest shared code doesn't seem to fit anywhere nicely.

Or should I leave it under arch/x86/kernel until decision is made?

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov