From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50E3C1DFCF; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:52:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.10 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711065137; cv=none; b=nUDX1eSZexFlkIW1Lvfj95IaKoBTGvFxhTfLA+HjzyzADtLGbfNPqdRtjr6WBdBQ9n82xnBzDqu6PjxLiT7Kje1Hja6lCYeHcuPKWyb+Fbi0vT46/Z13HPGg6hdni7DMQuwWW/ZpEjszWTIWC7w2vR0fAwIGjDSSofg4OnbrMqk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711065137; c=relaxed/simple; bh=A6ppOylSGg1w6xWuXb/YW2+KGjwJm/zoyUI49PmjYEM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=f8iTdKzr+Rtnk80TI7SKu3Rd1sh7okG0bDWon0T7H9uNVi525bK8MuSEfwj1GvUuuwaBGgk+x6H4imPdynTi8Pm1niqTXbaRyjuXkBlFcMZ4lwN05Kr+KE0MxfOkefzhKn+v82Gh/eHruuekO1isY+ZOLzPWVsOhXZc7GBGJ5rg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=XRVnwmHb; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.10 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="XRVnwmHb" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1711065135; x=1742601135; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=A6ppOylSGg1w6xWuXb/YW2+KGjwJm/zoyUI49PmjYEM=; b=XRVnwmHbmH/9o3C+Shqkj4vqgabRzVQPifQrldV0fZbAliig8E0g6vso tDLF0NDWwfo+S8nM3W8bYFm4qrwHFFABljVtFY9fE5V8fL4FJwcx5SJvT mmG9MeIBo9l6KuyFgroQwTL4b3ALLSfpWgIk6BNPC1bzfWRiHwiCeeSxG H1KM7uXKP8eILBEr2mf0vxfHHZPZoGizIQd3SlfjXA6BHA3fLjcsd+GDv IA5nPKbvLJf0sXQxedoP3Xro9uMfNevF4L4cv4/4NDqdJYS2aTpCqjOV+ p2RdN4kYz4lfNjDkweCtCWqRd4BdAEWHKPSwhGBXlVIjPHLfxk59IcfVn Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11020"; a="17490815" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,144,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="17490815" Received: from fmviesa004.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.144]) by fmvoesa104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Mar 2024 16:52:15 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,144,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="19345136" Received: from ls.sc.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([172.25.112.31]) by fmviesa004-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Mar 2024 16:52:14 -0700 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:52:14 -0700 From: Isaku Yamahata To: "Huang, Kai" Cc: Isaku Yamahata , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, isaku.yamahata@gmail.com, Paolo Bonzini , erdemaktas@google.com, Sean Christopherson , Sagi Shahar , chen.bo@intel.com, hang.yuan@intel.com, tina.zhang@intel.com, Binbin Wu , Yuan Yao , isaku.yamahata@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 030/130] KVM: TDX: Add helper functions to print TDX SEAMCALL error Message-ID: <20240321235214.GV1994522@ls.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <1259755bde3a07ec4dc2c78626fa348cf7323b33.1708933498.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com> <315bfb1b-7735-4e26-b881-fcaa25e0d3f3@intel.com> <20240320215013.GJ1994522@ls.amr.corp.intel.com> <76e918cf-44ef-4e9b-9e56-84256b637398@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <76e918cf-44ef-4e9b-9e56-84256b637398@intel.com> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 12:09:57PM +1300, "Huang, Kai" wrote: > > 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); > > } > > Should we also have a _ret version? > > void pr_seamcall_err(u64 op, u64 err) > { > /* A comment to explain why using the _ratelimited() version? */ Because KVM can hit successive seamcall erorrs e.g. during desutructing TD, (it's unintentional sometimes), ratelimited version is preferred as safe guard. For example, SEAMCALL on all or some LPs (TDH_MNG_KEY_FREEID) can fail at the same time. And the number of LPs can be hundreds. > pr_err_ratelimited(...); > } > > void pr_seamcall_err_ret(u64 op, u64 err, struct tdx_module_args *arg) > { > pr_err_seamcall(op, err); > > pr_err_ratelimited(...); > } > > (Hmm... if you look at the tdx.c in TDX host, there's similar code there, > and again, it was a little bit annoying when I did that..) > > Again, if we just use seamcall_ret() for ALL SEAMCALLs except VP.ENTER, we > can simply have one.. What about this? void pr_seamcall_err_ret(u64 op, u64 err, struct tdx_module_args *arg) { pr_err_ratelimited("SEAMCALL (0x%016llx) failed: 0x%016llx\n", op, error_code); if (arg) pr_err_ratelimited(...); } > > 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); > > } > > A higher-level wrapper to print SEPT error is fine to me, but do it in a > separate patch. Ok, Let's postpone custom version. -- Isaku Yamahata