On 1/2/2025 2:37 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 10:33:26AM +0530, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote:
> As in: I will handle the TSC MSRs for STSC guests and the other flow for
> non-STSC guests should remain. For now.
>
> And make that goddamn explicit.
>
> One possible way to do that is this:
I agree, if renaming helps to make it explicit, this is perfect. Thanks.
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c b/arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c
> index 6235286a0eda..61100532c259 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c
> @@ -1439,7 +1439,7 @@ static enum es_result __vc_handle_msr_caa(struct pt_regs *regs, bool write)
> * Reads: Reads of MSR_IA32_TSC should return the current TSC
> * value, use the value returned by RDTSC.
> */
> -static enum es_result __vc_handle_msr_tsc(struct pt_regs *regs, bool write)
> +static enum es_result __vc_handle_secure_tsc_msrs(struct pt_regs *regs, bool write)
> {
> u64 tsc;
>
> @@ -1477,7 +1477,9 @@ static enum es_result vc_handle_msr(struct ghcb *ghcb, struct es_em_ctxt *ctxt)
> case MSR_IA32_TSC:
> case MSR_AMD64_GUEST_TSC_FREQ:
> if (sev_status & MSR_AMD64_SNP_SECURE_TSC)
> - return __vc_handle_msr_tsc(regs, write);
> + return __vc_handle_secure_tsc_msrs(regs, write);
> + else
> + break;
> default:
> break;
> }
> ---
Regards,
Nikunj
