On Thu, Nov 25 2021 at 21:54, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 11/25/21 20:46, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 24 2021 at 16:20, isaku yamahata wrote:
>>> Add a second kvm_x86_ops hook in kvm_arch_vm_destroy() to support TDX's
>>> destruction path, which needs to first put the VM into a teardown state,
>>> then free per-vCPU resource, and finally free per-VM resources.
>>>
>>> Note, this knowingly creates a discrepancy in nomenclature for SVM as
>>> svm_vm_teardown() invokes avic_vm_destroy() and sev_vm_destroy().
>>> Moving the now-misnamed functions or renaming them is left to a future
>>> patch so as not to introduce a functional change for SVM.
>> That's just the wrong way around. Fixup SVM first and then add the TDX
>> muck on top. Stop this 'left to a future patch' nonsense. I know for
>> sure that those future patches never materialize.
>
> Or just keep vm_destroy for the "early" destruction, and give a new name
> to the new hook. It is used to give back the TDCS memory, so perhaps
> you can call it vm_free?
Up to you, but the current approach is bogus. I rather go for a fully
symmetric interface and let the various incarnations opt in at the right
place. Similar to what cpu hotplug states are implementing.
Thanks,
tglx
