On 12/19/23 3:23 PM, kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 01:57:51PM -0800, Alexey Makhalov wrote:
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c
index 3aa1adaed18f..ef07ab7a07e1 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c
@@ -428,6 +428,30 @@ static bool __init vmware_legacy_x2apic_available(void)
(eax & BIT(VCPU_LEGACY_X2APIC));
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_TDX_GUEST
+unsigned long vmware_tdx_hypercall(unsigned long cmd,
+ struct tdx_module_args *args)
+{
+ if (!hypervisor_is_type(X86_HYPER_VMWARE))
+ return 0;
+
+ if (cmd & ~VMWARE_CMD_MASK) {
+ pr_warn("Out of range command %x\n", cmd);
+ return 0;
Is zero success? Shouldn't it be an error?
VMware hypercalls do not have a standard way of signalling an error.
To generalize expectations from the caller perspective of any existing
hypercalls: error (including hypercall is not supported or disabled) is
when return value is 0 and out1/2 are unchanged or equal to in1/in2.
All existing vmware_hypercall callers will gracefully handle returned 0.
But they should never hit this path, as 0 bail out was introduced as a
protection for the case where exported vmware_tdx_hypercall is used by
random caller (not following VMware hypercall ABI).
+ }
+
+ args->r10 = VMWARE_TDX_VENDOR_LEAF;
+ args->r11 = VMWARE_TDX_HCALL_FUNC;
+ args->r12 = VMWARE_HYPERVISOR_MAGIC;
+ args->r13 = cmd;
+
+ __tdx_hypercall(args);
+
+ return args->r12;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vmware_tdx_hypercall);
+#endif
+
#ifdef CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT
static void vmware_sev_es_hcall_prepare(struct ghcb *ghcb,
struct pt_regs *regs)
--
2.39.0
