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

Sean Christopherson
2025-10-27T23:42:12Z

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?