Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] x86/tdx: Add __tdcall() and __tdvmcall() helper functions

[Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan]

On 4/20/21 4:53 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 4:12 PM Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
> <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [..]
> > > > > Also, do you *REALLY* need to do this from assembly?  Can't it be done
> > > > > in the C wrapper?
> > > > Its common for all use cases of TDVMCALL (vendor specific, in/out, etc).
> > > > so added
> > > > it here.
>
> Can I ask a favor?
>
> Please put a line break between quoted lines and your reply.

will do

> > > That's not a good reason.  You could just as easily have a C wrapper
> > > which all uses of TDVMCALL go through.
>
> ...because this runs together when reading otherwise.
>
> > Any reason for not preferring it in assembly code?
> > Also, using wrapper will add more complication for in/out instruction
> > substitution use case. please check the use case in following patch.
> > https://github.com/intel/tdx/commit/1b73f60aa5bb93554f3b15cd786a9b10b53c1543
>
> This commit still has open coded assembly for the TDVMCALL? I thought
> we talked about it being unified with the common definition, or has
> this patch not been reworked with that feedback yet? I expect there is
> no performance reason why in/out need to get their own custom coded
> TDVMCALL implementation. It should also be the case the failure should
> behave the same as native in/out failure i.e. all ones on read
> failure, and silent drops on write failure.

That link is for older version. My next version addresses your review
comments (re-uses TDVMCALL() function). Although the patch is ready, I am
waiting to fix other review comments before sending the next version. I
have just shared that link to explain about the use case.

--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer