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

Ira Weiny
2025-10-28T17:10:36Z

Sagi Shahar wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 6:42 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2025, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > > Sean Christopherson wrote:

[snip]

> > > > 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?
>
> I've got v12 mostly ready to be sent for review. I was thinking of
> incorporating this change as part of that series. Do you prefer that I
> wait until this patch lands before I post v12?

I can't speak for Sean directly. Buy my interpretation was you should
make this SEV change a lead in patch of v12. IOW v12 patch 1/X is this
SEV change which sets up the new VM_TYPE() macro to be used subsequently
by the TDX code.

Then if there are further issues with the TDX stuff Sean can pick this off
as a clean up. But my hope is that this series is pretty close to being
acceptable and it will land. Then we can focus on building the tests on top of
this new architecture.

Ira