Re: [PATCH v11 21/21] KVM: selftests: Add TDX lifecycle test

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2025, Ira Weiny wrote:
> Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h
> > index af52cd938b50..af0b53987c06 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h
> > @@ -210,6 +210,20 @@ kvm_static_assert(sizeof(struct vm_shape) == sizeof(uint64_t));
> >  	shape;					\
> >  })
> >  
> > +#define __VM_TYPE(__mode, __type)		\
> > +({						\
> > +	struct vm_shape shape = {		\
> > +		.mode = (__mode),		\
> > +		.type = (__type)		\
> > +	};					\
> > +						\
> > +	shape;					\
> > +})
> > +
> > +#define VM_TYPE(__type)				\
> > +	__VM_TYPE(VM_MODE_DEFAULT, __type)
> 
> We already have VM_SHAPE()?  Why do we need this as well?

VM_SHAPE() takes the "mode", and assumes a default type.  The alternative would
be something like __VM_SHAPE(__type, __mode), but that's annoying, especially on
x86 which only has one mode.

And __VM_SHAPE(__type) + ____VM_SHAPE(__type, __mode) feels even more weird.

I'm definitely open to more ideas, VM_TYPE() isn't great either, just the least
awful option I came up with.

> >  #if defined(__aarch64__)
> >  
> >  extern enum vm_guest_mode vm_mode_default;
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86/processor.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86/processor.h
> > index 51cd84b9ca66..dd21e11e1908 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86/processor.h
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86/processor.h
> > @@ -362,6 +362,10 @@ static inline unsigned int x86_model(unsigned int eax)
> >  	return ((eax >> 12) & 0xf0) | ((eax >> 4) & 0x0f);
> >  }
> >  
> > +#define VM_SHAPE_SEV		VM_TYPE(KVM_X86_SEV_VM)
> > +#define VM_SHAPE_SEV_ES		VM_TYPE(KVM_X86_SEV_ES_VM)
> > +#define VM_SHAPE_SNP		VM_TYPE(KVM_X86_SNP_VM)
> 
> FWIW I think the SEV bits should be pulled apart from the TDX bits and the
> TDX bits squashed back into this series with the SEV as a per-cursor patch.

Ya, that's my intent, "officially" post and land this SEV+ change, then have the
TDX series build on top.  Or did you mean something else?