Re: [RFC v2-fix-v1 1/1] x86/tdx: Add __tdx_module_call() and __tdx_hypercall() helper functions

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

Hi Dave,

On 5/18/21 10:58 PM, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> Guests communicate with VMMs with hypercalls. Historically, these
> are implemented using instructions that are known to cause VMEXITs
> like vmcall, vmlaunch, etc. However, with TDX, VMEXITs no longer
> expose guest state to the host.  This prevents the old hypercall
> mechanisms from working. So to communicate with VMM, TDX
> specification defines a new instruction called "tdcall".
> 
> In TDX based VM, since VMM is an untrusted entity, a intermediary
> layer (TDX module) exists between host and guest to facilitate the
> secure communication. And "tdcall" instruction  is used by the guest
> to request services from TDX module. And a variant of "tdcall"
> instruction (with specific arguments as defined by GHCI) is used by
> the guest to request services from  VMM via the TDX module.
> 
> Implement common helper functions to communicate with the TDX Module
> and VMM (using TDCALL instruction).
>     
> __tdx_hypercall()    - function can be used to request services from
> 		       the VMM.
> __tdx_module_call()  - function can be used to communicate with the
> 		       TDX Module.
> 
> Also define two additional wrappers, tdx_hypercall() and
> tdx_hypercall_out_r11() to cover common use cases of
> __tdx_hypercall() function. Since each use case of
> __tdx_module_call() is different, we don't need such wrappers for it.
> 
> Implement __tdx_module_call() and __tdx_hypercall() helper functions
> in assembly.
> 
> Rationale behind choosing to use assembly over inline assembly are,
> 
> 1. Since the number of lines of instructions (with comments) in
> __tdx_hypercall() implementation is over 70, using inline assembly
> to implement it will make it hard to read.
>     
> 2. Also, since many registers (R8-R15, R[A-D]X)) will be used in
> TDCALL operation, if all these registers are included in in-line
> assembly constraints, some of the older compilers may not
> be able to meet this requirement.
> 
> Also, just like syscalls, not all TDVMCALL/TDCALLs use cases need to
> use the same set of argument registers. The implementation here picks
> the current worst-case scenario for TDCALL (4 registers). For TDCALLs
> with fewer than 4 arguments, there will end up being a few superfluous
> (cheap) instructions.  But, this approach maximizes code reuse. The
> same argument applies to __tdx_hypercall() function as well.
> 
> Current implementation of __tdx_hypercall() includes error handling
> (ud2 on failure case) in assembly function instead of doing it in C
> wrapper function. The reason behind this choice is, when adding support
> for in/out instructions (refer to patch titled "x86/tdx: Handle port
> I/O" in this series), we use alternative_io() to substitute in/out
> instruction with  __tdx_hypercall() calls. So use of C wrappers is not
> trivial in this case because the input parameters will be in the wrong
> registers and it's tricky to include proper buffer code to make this
> happen.
> 
> For registers used by TDCALL instruction, please check TDX GHCI
> specification, sec 2.4 and 3.
> 
> https://software.intel.com/content/dam/develop/external/us/en/documents/intel-tdx-guest-hypervisor-communication-interface.pdf
> 
> Originally-by: Sean Christopherson<seanjc@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>

I did send it as in-reply-to message id 3a7c0bba-cc43-e4ba-f7fe-43c8627c2fc2@intel.com (your
last reply mail id), but for some reason its not detected as reply to original patch
"[RFC v2 05/32] x86/tdx: Add __tdcall() and __tdvmcall() helper functions".

I am not sure whats going on, but please review as reply to original patch.

-- 
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer