On Thu, Jul 20, 2023, isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> index aa7a56a47564..32883e520b00 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> @@ -562,6 +562,39 @@ struct kvm_pmu_event_filter {
> /* x86-specific KVM_EXIT_HYPERCALL flags. */
> #define KVM_EXIT_HYPERCALL_LONG_MODE BIT(0)
>
> +struct kvm_mem_enc_cmd {
> + /* sub-command id of KVM_MEM_ENC_OP. */
> + __u32 id;
> + /*
> + * Auxiliary flags for sub-command. If sub-command doesn't use it,
> + * set zero.
> + */
> + __u32 flags;
> + /*
> + * Data for sub-command. An immediate or a pointer to the actual
> + * data in process virtual address. If sub-command doesn't use it,
> + * set zero.
> + */
> + __u64 data;
> + /*
> + * Supplemental error code in the case of error.
> + * SEV error code from the PSP or TDX SEAMCALL status code.
> + * The caller should set zero.
> + */
> + union {
> + struct {
> + __u32 error;
> + /*
> + * KVM_SEV_LAUNCH_START and KVM_SEV_RECEIVE_START
> + * require extra data. Not included in struct
> + * kvm_sev_launch_start or struct kvm_sev_receive_start.
> + */
> + __u32 sev_fd;
> + };
> + __u64 error64;
> + };
> +};
Eww. Why not just use an entirely different struct for TDX? I don't see what
benefit this provides other than a warm fuzzy feeling that TDX and SEV share a
struct. Practically speaking, KVM will likely take on more work to forcefully
smush the two together than if they're separate things.
