Re: [PATCH v8 08/11] x86/tdx: Wire up KVM hypercalls

[Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>]

+Isaku

Hi Isaku/Kirill,

On 11/5/21 1:59 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Why use a magic string?  There are already mechanisms for the host to announce
> itself to the guest, i.e. the guest shouldn't be attempting these hypercalls unless
> it knows it's running on KVM (or something that implements KVM's ABI, whatever
> that may be).
> 
> The only use case I can think of is to support multiple flavors of hypercalls in
> the VMM, e.g. to let KVM support both KVM and Hyper-V hypercalls when KVM is
> masquerading as Hyper-V, but this magic value alone isn't sufficient.
> 
> And if there is a future where KVM wants to support multiple sets of hypercalls,
> using the entire 64-bit GPR for a magic value is unnecessary and wasteful, e.g.
> it requires an overside MOV imm, reg.
> 
> Why not use a single high bit?  Actually, looking at KVM's set of hypercalls,
> the guest can literally pass @nr as is.  The GHCI defines all non-zero values as
> vendor owned, i.e. this needs to ensure only that @nr is non-zero.  For whatever
> reason, perhaps to avoid false positives if the guest forgets to fill the value,
> KVM's hypercalls start at '1'.
> 
> Regardless of what is stuffed into r10 for the TDVMCALL, if it's anything other
> than KVM's raw hypercall number, it absolutely must go into
> include/uapi/linux/kvm_para.h and it should be done as a standalone commit,
> because what you're proposing here is effectively committing KVM to supporting
> an ABI.  That is not remotely clear from the changelog.


Do you see any issues with using a single bit or just passing the @nr as
it is?

-- 
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer