[snip]
> +/*
> + * cpuid entry lookup in TDX cpuid config way.
> + * The difference is how to specify index(subleaves).
AFAICT you only have one caller here. If this is the only difference, will it
be simpler to ask caller to simply convert TDX_CPUID_NO_SUBLEAF to 0, so this
function can perhaps be removed?
> + * Specify index to TDX_CPUID_NO_SUBLEAF for CPUID leaf with no-subleaves.
> + */
> +static const struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *tdx_find_cpuid_entry(const struct kvm_cpuid2 *cpuid,
> + u32 function, u32 index)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + /* In TDX CPU CONFIG, TDX_CPUID_NO_SUBLEAF means index = 0. */
^
CPUID_CONFIG please.
> + if (index == TDX_CPUID_NO_SUBLEAF)
> + index = 0;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < cpuid->nent; i++) {
> + const struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *e = &cpuid->entries[i];
> +
> + if (e->function == function &&
> + (e->index == index ||
> + !(e->flags & KVM_CPUID_FLAG_SIGNIFCANT_INDEX)))
> + return e;
> + }
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static int setup_tdparams(struct kvm *kvm, struct td_params *td_params,
> + struct kvm_tdx_init_vm *init_vm)
> +{
> + const struct kvm_cpuid2 *cpuid = &init_vm->cpuid;
> + const struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *entry;
> + u64 guest_supported_xcr0;
> + u64 guest_supported_xss;
> + int max_pa;
> + int i;
> +
> + if (kvm->created_vcpus)
> + return -EBUSY;
> + td_params->max_vcpus = kvm->max_vcpus;
> + td_params->attributes = init_vm->attributes;
> + if (td_params->attributes & TDX_TD_ATTRIBUTE_PERFMON) {
> + /*
> + * TODO: save/restore PMU related registers around TDENTER.
> + * Once it's done, remove this guard.
> + */
> + pr_warn("TD doesn't support perfmon yet. KVM needs to save/restore "
> + "host perf registers properly.\n");
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + }
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < tdx_caps.nr_cpuid_configs; i++) {
> + const struct tdx_cpuid_config *config = &tdx_caps.cpuid_configs[i];
> + const struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *entry =
> + tdx_find_cpuid_entry(cpuid, config->leaf, config->sub_leaf);
> + struct tdx_cpuid_value *value = &td_params->cpuid_values[i];
> +
> + if (!entry)
> + continue;
> +
> + value->eax = entry->eax & config->eax;
> + value->ebx = entry->ebx & config->ebx;
> + value->ecx = entry->ecx & config->ecx;
> + value->edx = entry->edx & config->edx;
> + }
A comment to explain above would be helpful, i.e TDX requires the number and the
order of those entries in TD_PARAMS's cpuid_values[] must be in the same number
and order with TDSYSINFO's CPUID_CONFIG.
Also, this code depends on @td_params already being zeroed. Perhaps also point
it out.
[snip]
> +static int tdx_td_init(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_tdx_cmd *cmd)
> +{
>
[snip]
> +
> + ret = setup_tdparams(kvm, td_params, init_vm);
> + if (ret)
> + goto out;
> +
> + ret = __tdx_td_init(kvm, td_params);
> + if (ret)
> + goto out;
> +
> + kvm_tdx->tsc_offset = td_tdcs_exec_read64(kvm_tdx, TD_TDCS_EXEC_TSC_OFFSET);
> + kvm_tdx->attributes = td_params->attributes;
> + kvm_tdx->xfam = td_params->xfam;
> +
> +out:
> + /* kfree() accepts NULL. */
> + kfree(init_vm);
> + kfree(td_params);
So looks KVM doesn't CPUID configurations that are passed to the TDX module.
IIUC, KVM still depends on userspace to later use KVM_SET_CPUID2 to fill the
_same_ CPUID entries for each vcpu? If so, what if userspace didn't provide
consistent CPUIDs in KVM_SET_CPUID2? Should we verify in KVM_SET_CPUID2 that
CPUIDs are consistent?
I am thinking if some #VE handling requires CPUID to make some decision, then
inconsistent CPUIDs will cause trouble, but I don't have an example now.
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
>
[snip]
