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:   Thu, 3 Aug 2023 16:47:25 +0300
From:   "kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
To:     "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>
Cc:     "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@google.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>,
        "sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        "n.borisov.lkml@gmail.com" <n.borisov.lkml@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/12] x86/tdx: Make TDX_HYPERCALL asm similar to
 TDX_MODULE_CALL
Message-ID: <20230803134725.eq4uliddd7rlu3ac@box>
References: <cover.1690369495.git.kai.huang@intel.com>
 <6f92d08855491b3e9ff1221d2bb7af873d546afd.1690369495.git.kai.huang@intel.com>
 <20230727171008.aw3z6oxh4vfnahep@box.shutemov.name>
 <e75603996f88941892a19181c852ecfdc9adf06c.camel@intel.com>
 <20230803114546.em5qsjs33i5b7ogh@box.shutemov.name>
 <332547a2332121313bf6d00c9eaf71136b48696b.camel@intel.com>
 <20230803121207.krvcuj22mdxhugog@box.shutemov.name>
 <ce045f6ccf9451d177581280c35092de7bd71488.camel@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ce045f6ccf9451d177581280c35092de7bd71488.camel@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 12:41:25PM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-08-03 at 15:12 +0300, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 11:56:40AM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2023-08-03 at 14:45 +0300, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > > > > > I would rather keep the struct
> > > > > > read-only where possible.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > We can achieve this if there's a clean way to do, but I don't see that.
> > > > 
> > > > Keep _ret() and non-_ret() versions?
> > > 
> > > The problem is the assembly needs to always turn on the "\ret" so that the R10
> > > (used as VP.VMCALL leaf return code) can be saved to the structure.  Otherwise
> > > we are not able to return VP.VMCALL leaf return code.
> > 
> > Yeah. This is downside of single assembly macro for all calls.
> > 
> > One possible way is to make it in C: non-_ret() version pass to the
> > assembly helper copy of the caller's struct, keeping original intact.
> > But, yeah, it is ugly.
> > 
> 
> You sure you want to do this? :-)

No, I am not.

Maybe somebody else has better ideas.

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov