Re: [PATCH v14 03/22] KVM: selftests: Initialize the TDX VM

[Lisa Wang]

On Wed, Sep 09, 2026 at 06:00:53PM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> >> The reason we could not use __TEST_ASSERT_VM_VCPU_IOCTL() directly[2] is
> >> because it formats ther return value as %i (32-bit), whereas
> >> __tdx_vm_ioctl might return a u64 hardware error code.
> >>
> 
> Since we cannot simply use hw_error to replace ret, there will be not 32bit
> vs 64bit issue. But ...
> 
> >> I agree with your suggestion to introduce a new
> >> TEST_ASSERT_TDX_VM_VCPU_IOCTL() macro to print out u64 hardware error
> >> code properly.
> 
> ... if we want to print hw_error as well, we still need a new macro.
> 
> >> [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/a58e2941-77f9-43cf-a54d-023506dd7eb0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> >>
> > 
> > Is tdx_vm_ioctl() the only place where TEST_ASSERT_TDX_VM_VCPU_IOCTL()
> > is going to be used though? If so, maybe we should defer introducing
> > TEST_ASSERT_TDX_VM_VCPU_IOCTL() till later.
> 
> I think tdx_vcpu_ioctl() will use it as well?

Thanks for replying.

I agree all of the other parts of your comments.

Just wanted to point out one detail: tdx_vm_ioctl() is the only place
that actually needs to evaluate hw_error right now. Unlike the VM-scoped
ioctls in the x86 kernel code, the functions dispatched via
tdx_vcpu_unlocked_ioctl() (such as tdx_vcpu_init or
tdx_vcpu_init_mem_region) do not currently return the TDX SEAMCALL error
codes into the hw_error field.

Thus, I would prefer to inline TEST_ASSERT directly inside tdx_vm_ioctl()
instead of introducing a new TEST_ASSERT_TDX_VM_VCPU_IOCTL() right now.

Lisa

> > I think the issue with if (ret) is just that TEST_ASSERT(!ret) already
> > does that same check, and so we can drop the if (ret) part.
> >