Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:8 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:8;
Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:40:49 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Jeremi Piotrowski <jpiotrowski@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, stefan.bader@canonical.com,
        tim.gardner@canonical.com, roxana.nicolescu@canonical.com,
        cascardo@canonical.com, kys@microsoft.com, haiyangz@microsoft.com,
        wei.liu@kernel.org, sashal@kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Michael Kelley <mhkelley58@gmail.com>,
        Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@suse.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] x86/tdx: Check for TDX partitioning during early
 TDX init
Message-ID: <20231129164049.GVZWdpkVlc8nUvl/jx@fat_crate.local>
References: <20231122170106.270266-1-jpiotrowski@linux.microsoft.com>
 <0799b692-4b26-4e00-9cec-fdc4c929ea58@linux.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0799b692-4b26-4e00-9cec-fdc4c929ea58@linux.microsoft.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 06:19:20PM +0100, Jeremi Piotrowski wrote:
> Which approach do you prefer?

I'm trying to figure out from the whole thread, what this guest is.

* A HyperV second-level guest

* of type TDX

* Needs to defer cc_mask and page visibility bla...

* needs to disable TDX module calls

* stub out tdx_accept_memory

Anything else?

And my worry is that this is going to become a mess and your patches
already show that it is going in that direction because you need to run
the TDX side but still have *some* things done differently. Which is
needed because this is a different type of guest, even if it is a TDX
one.

Which reminds me, we have amd_cc_platform_vtom() which is a similar type
of thing.

And the TDX side could do something similar and at least *try* to
abstract away all that stuff.

Would it be nice? Of course not!

How can one model a virt zoo of at least a dozen guest types but still
keep code sane... :-\

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette