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:   Mon, 28 Feb 2022 19:33:53 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc:     tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
        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, knsathya@kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        sdeep@vmware.com, seanjc@google.com, tony.luck@intel.com,
        vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com,
        thomas.lendacky@amd.com, brijesh.singh@amd.com, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 15/30] x86/boot: Allow to hook up alternative port I/O
 helpers
Message-ID: <20220228163353.d6redrbv3kpb557n@black.fi.intel.com>
References: <20220224155630.52734-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20220224155630.52734-16-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20220227220219.6myd32n6oojwbnyh@treble>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220227220219.6myd32n6oojwbnyh@treble>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 02:02:19PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 06:56:15PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > Port I/O instructions trigger #VE in the TDX environment. In response to
> > the exception, kernel emulates these instructions using hypercalls.
> > 
> > But during early boot, on the decompression stage, it is cumbersome to
> > deal with #VE. It is cleaner to go to hypercalls directly, bypassing #VE
> > handling.
> > 
> > Add a way to hook up alternative port I/O helpers in the boot stub.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> 
> I think you missed my comment from v3.

I did not missed it, but I failed to acknowledge it.

To me it is a judgement call. Either way has right to live.
I talked to Borislav on this and we suggested to keep it as. Rework later
as needed.

> Repeating it here:
> 
> At least from reading the commit message it's not self-evident why #VE
> handling would be worse, especially since there's already #VC support in
> boot.  It would help to give more info about that in the commit message.
> 
> The current approach also seems fragile, doesn't it require all future
> code to remember to not do i/o directly?  How do we make sure that
> doesn't happen going forward?
> 
> How does it fail if some code accidentally does i/o directly?  Or
> triggers #VE some other way?  Is the error understandable and
> actionable?

Dealing with failure in decompression code is a pain. We don't have usual
infrastructure there. The patch deals with port I/O which is the only way
to communicate issue to the user. If it fails for whatever reason we are
screwed. And it doesn't depend on how it was implemented.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov