On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 10:28:20AM +0000,
"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-06-27 at 12:48 +0300, kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 02:12:35AM +1200, Kai Huang wrote:
> > > +/*
> > > + * Wrapper of __seamcall() to convert SEAMCALL leaf function error code
> > > + * to kernel error code. @seamcall_ret and @out contain the SEAMCALL
> > > + * leaf function return code and the additional output respectively if
> > > + * not NULL.
> > > + */
> > > +static int __always_unused seamcall(u64 fn, u64 rcx, u64 rdx, u64 r8, u64 r9,
> > > + u64 *seamcall_ret,
> > > + struct tdx_module_output *out)
> > > +{
> > > + u64 sret;
> > > + int cpu;
> > > +
> > > + /* Need a stable CPU id for printing error message */
> > > + cpu = get_cpu();
> > > + sret = __seamcall(fn, rcx, rdx, r8, r9, out);
> > > + put_cpu();
> > > +
> > > + /* Save SEAMCALL return code if the caller wants it */
> > > + if (seamcall_ret)
> > > + *seamcall_ret = sret;
> > > +
> > > + switch (sret) {
> > > + case 0:
> > > + /* SEAMCALL was successful */
> > > + return 0;
> > > + case TDX_SEAMCALL_VMFAILINVALID:
> > > + pr_err_once("module is not loaded.\n");
> > > + return -ENODEV;
> > > + default:
> > > + pr_err_once("SEAMCALL failed: CPU %d: leaf %llu, error 0x%llx.\n",
> > > + cpu, fn, sret);
> > > + if (out)
> > > + pr_err_once("additional output: rcx 0x%llx, rdx 0x%llx, r8 0x%llx, r9 0x%llx, r10 0x%llx, r11 0x%llx.\n",
> > > + out->rcx, out->rdx, out->r8,
> > > + out->r9, out->r10, out->r11);
> >
> > This look excessively noisy.
> >
> > Don't we have SEAMCALL leafs that can fail in normal situation? Like
> > TDX_OPERAND_BUSY error code that indicate that operation likely will
> > succeed on retry.
>
> For TDX module initialization TDX_OPERAND_BUSY cannot happen. KVM may have
> legal cases that BUSY can happen, e.g., KVM's TDP MMU supports handling faults
> concurrently on different cpus, but that is still under discussion. Also KVM
> tends to use __seamcall() directly:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/3c2c142e14a04a833b47f77faecaa91899b472cd.1678643052.git.isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx/
>
> I guess KVM doesn't want to print message in all cases as you said, but for
> module initialization is fine. Those error messages are useful in case
> something goes wrong, and printing them in seamcall() helps to reduce the code
> to print in all callers.
That's right. KVM wants to do its own error handling and error messaging. Its
requirement is different from TDX module initialization. I didn't see much
benefit to unify the function.
--
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>
