On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 07:49:48AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 7/3/24 06:04, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > >>> -/* TDCS fields. To be used by TDG.VM.WR and TDG.VM.RD module calls */ > >>> +/* TDX TD-Scope Metadata. To be used by TDG.VM.WR and TDG.VM.RD */ > >>> +#define TDCS_CONFIG_FLAGS 0x1110000300000016 > >> 0x9110000300000016 > >>> +#define TDCS_TD_CTLS 0x11104800000017 > >> 0x9110000300000017 > > Setting bit 63 in these field id is regression in new TDX spec and TDX > > module. It is going to be fixed in next version. Both versions of field > > ids are going to be valid. > > I kinda never liked the big ol' magic numbers approach here. But could > we please introduce some helpers here? > > Then we'll end up with something like this (if the 0x111 can't be > decomposed): > > #define _TDCS_CMD(c) ((0x1110UL << 48) | (c)) > > #define TDCS_CONFIG_FLAGS _TDCS_CMD(0x16) > #define TDCS_TD_CTLS _TDCS_CMD(0x17) > > Then when folks change their mind about what should be in the TDX spec, > we have one place to go fix it up in addition to making this all more > readable. Hm. I am not sure about this. It can be tedious if we want to encode all info this way. Like, size of the field, number of elements in the field, number of elements in the sequence, etc. It is going to be macro on the macro on the macro. I don't think it would improve readability. On related note, I think the TDX 1.5 definitions of field ids are more useful as you can infer more info from them. I consider to switching all definitions to the new format. It effectively drops TDX 1.0 support as the newly used bits are reserved in 1.0. TDX module 1.0 is no longer supported, but kernel haven't broken anything from the guest side yet. I don't think anybody actually uses it and I need to jump hoops to get it running for validation. Any objections for dropping TDX 1.0 support? -- Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov
