On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:07:30AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 2/13/23 03:59, Kai Huang wrote: > > @@ -247,8 +395,17 @@ int tdx_enable(void) > > ret = __tdx_enable(); > > break; > > case TDX_MODULE_INITIALIZED: > > - /* Already initialized, great, tell the caller. */ > > - ret = 0; > > + /* > > + * The previous call of __tdx_enable() may only have > > + * initialized part of present cpus during module > > + * initialization, and new cpus may have become online > > + * since then. > > + * > > + * To make sure all online cpus are TDX-runnable, always > > + * do per-cpu initialization for all online cpus here > > + * even the module has been initialized. > > + */ > > + ret = __tdx_enable_online_cpus(); > > I'm missing something here. CPUs get initialized through either: > > 1. __tdx_enable(), for the CPUs around at the time > 2. tdx_cpu_online(), for hotplugged CPUs after __tdx_enable() > > But, this is a third class. CPUs that came online after #1, but which > got missed by #2. How can that happen? offline CPUs, start TDX crap, online CPUs.
