Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-203193-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231212204647.2170650-1-sagis@google.com> <ce967287157e830303fdd3d4a37e7d62a1698747.camel@intel.com>
 <CAAhR5DFmT0n9KWRMtO=FkWbm9_tXy1gP-mpbyF05mmLUph2dPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <59652393edbf94a8ac7bf8d069d15ecb826867e1.camel@intel.com> <7c3abac8c28310916651a25c30277fc1efbad56f.camel@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <7c3abac8c28310916651a25c30277fc1efbad56f.camel@intel.com>
From: Sagi Shahar <sagis@google.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 15:42:16 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAhR5DH79H2+riwtu_+cw-OpdRm02ELdbVt6T_5TQG3t4qAs2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 00/29] TDX KVM selftests
To: "Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>
Cc: "vipinsh@google.com" <vipinsh@google.com>, "Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@google.com>, 
	"shuah@kernel.org" <shuah@kernel.org>, "Xu, Haibo1" <haibo1.xu@intel.com>, 
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, "Afranji, Ryan" <afranji@google.com>, 
	"dmatlack@google.com" <dmatlack@google.com>, "seanjc@google.com" <seanjc@google.com>, 
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>, 
	"ackerleytng@google.com" <ackerleytng@google.com>, "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>, 
	"pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>, "jmattson@google.com" <jmattson@google.com>, 
	"Annapurve, Vishal" <vannapurve@google.com>, "runanwang@google.com" <runanwang@google.com>, 
	"Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>, 
	"linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, 
	"chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com" <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>, "pgonda@google.com" <pgonda@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 3:18=E2=80=AFPM Verma, Vishal L <vishal.l.verma@inte=
l.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2024-06-05 at 20:15 +0000, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-06-05 at 15:10 -0500, Sagi Shahar wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 1:38=E2=80=AFPM Verma, Vishal L <vishal.l.verm=
a@intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2023-12-12 at 12:46 -0800, Sagi Shahar wrote:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > This is v4 of the patch series for TDX selftests.
> > > > >
> > > > > It has been updated for Intel=E2=80=99s v17 of the TDX host patch=
es which was
> > > > > proposed here:
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1699368322.git.isaku.yamahata@i=
ntel.com/
> > > > >
> > > > > The tree can be found at:
> > > > > https://github.com/googleprodkernel/linux-cc/tree/tdx-selftests-r=
fc-v5
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I wanted to check if there were any plans from Google to refresh th=
is
> > > > series for the current TDX patches and the kvm-coco-queue baseline?
> > > >
> > > I'm going to work on it soon and was planning on using Isaku's V19 of
> > > the TDX host patches
> >
> > That's great, thank you!
> >
> > >
> > > > I'm setting up a CI system that the team is using to test updates t=
o
> > > > the different TDX patch series, and it currently runs the KVM Unit
> > > > tests, and kvm selftests, and we'd like to be able to add these thr=
ee
> > > > new TDX tests to that as well.
> > > >
> > > > I tried to take a quick shot at rebasing it, but ran into several
> > > > conflicts since kvm-coco-queue has in the meantime made changes e.g=
. in
> > > > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64/processor.c vcpu_setup().
> > > >
> > > > If you can help rebase this, Rick's MMU prep series might be a good
> > > > baseline to use:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240530210714.364118-1-rick.p.edgecomb=
e@intel.com/
> > >
> > > This patch series only includes the basic TDX MMU changes and is
> > > missing a lot of the TDX support. Not sure how this can be used as a
> > > baseline without the rest of the TDX patches. Are there other patch
> > > series that were posted based on this series which provides the rest
> > > of the TDX support?
> >
> > Hm you're right, I was looking more narrowly because of the kvm-coco-
> > queue conflicts, for some of which even v19 might be too old. The MMU
> > prep series uses a much more recent kvm-coco-queue baseline.
> >
> > Rick, can we post a branch with /everything/ on this MMU prep baseline
> > for this selftest refresh?
>
> Actually I see the branch below does contain everything, not just the
> MMU prep patches. Sagi, is this fine for a baseline?
>
Maybe for internal development but I don't think I can post an
upstream patchset based on an internal Intel development branch.
Do you know if there's a plan to post a patch series based on that branch s=
oon?
> >
> > > >
> > > > This is also available in a tree at:
> > > > https://github.com/intel/tdx/tree/tdx_kvm_dev-2024-05-30
> > > >
> > > > >