Re: [PATCH v19 030/130] KVM: TDX: Add helper functions to print TDX SEAMCALL error

[Isaku Yamahata]

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 01:29:07PM +1300,
"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 26/02/2024 9:25 pm, isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Add helper functions to print out errors from the TDX module in a uniform
> > manner.
> 
> Likely we need more information here.  See below.
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Yuan Yao <yuan.yao@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v19:
> > - dropped unnecessary include <asm/tdx.h>
> > 
> > v18:
> > - Added Reviewed-by Binbin.
> 
> The tag doesn't show in the SoB chain.
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> 
> [...]
> 
> > +void pr_tdx_error(u64 op, u64 error_code, const struct tdx_module_args *out)
> > +{
> > +	if (!out) {
> > +		pr_err_ratelimited("SEAMCALL (0x%016llx) failed: 0x%016llx\n",
> > +				   op, error_code);
> > +		return;
> > +	}
> 
> I think this is the reason you still want the @out in tdx_seamcall()?
> 
> But I am not sure either -- even if you want to have @out *here* -- why
> cannot you pass a NULL explicitly when you *know* the concerned SEAMCALL
> doesn't have a valid output?
> 
> > +
> > +#define MSG	\
> > +	"SEAMCALL (0x%016llx) failed: 0x%016llx RCX 0x%016llx RDX 0x%016llx R8 0x%016llx R9 0x%016llx R10 0x%016llx R11 0x%016llx\n"
> > +	pr_err_ratelimited(MSG, op, error_code, out->rcx, out->rdx, out->r8,
> > +			   out->r9, out->r10, out->r11);
> > +}
> 
> Besides the regs that you are printing, there are more regs (R12-R15, RDI,
> RSI) in the structure.
> 
> It's not clear why you only print some, but not all.
> 
> AFAICT the VP.ENTER SEAMCALL can have all regs as valid output?

Only those are used for SEAMCALLs except TDH.VP.ENTER. TDH.VP.ENTER is an
exception.

As discussed at [1], out can be eliminated. We will have only limited output.
If we go for that route, we'll have the two following functions.
Does it make sense?

void pr_tdx_error(u64 op, u64 error_code)
{
        pr_err_ratelimited("SEAMCALL (0x%016llx) failed: 0x%016llx\n",
                           op, error_code);
}

void pr_tdx_sept_error(u64 op, u64 error_code, const union tdx_sept_entry *entry,
		       const union tdx_sept_level_state *level_state)
{
#define MSG \
        "SEAMCALL (0x%016llx) failed: 0x%016llx entry 0x%016llx level_state 0x%016llx\n"
        pr_err_ratelimited(MSG, op, error_code, entry->raw, level_state->raw);
}


[1] https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20240320213600.GI1994522@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

> 
> Anyway, that being said, you might need to put more text in
> changelog/comment to make this patch (at least more) reviewable.
> 

-- 
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>