On Mon, 2023-02-13 at 15:52 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 2/13/23 15:43, Huang, Kai wrote: > > ( My main concern is "Run after the KVM handler" seems a little bit hacky to me. > > Logically, it's more reasonable to have the TDX callback _before_ KVM's but not > > _after_. If any user (KVM) has done tdx_enable() successfully, the TDX code > > should give the user a "TDX-runnable" cpu before user (KVM)'s own callback is > > involved. Anyway as mentioned above, I'll do above as you suggested.) > > I was assuming that the KVM callback is what does VMXON for a given > logical CPU. If that were the case, you'd need to do the TDX stuff > *AFTER* VMXON. > > Am I wrong? > > You are right. What I meant was: because we choose to not support VMXON in the (non-KVM) kernel, we need/have to put TDX's callback after KVM's. Otherwise, perhaps a better way is to put TDX's callback before KVM's. But maybe it's an arguable "perhaps", so let's just do TDX's callback after KVM's as you suggested.
