Re: [PATCH v13 07/22] KVM: selftests: Introduce structures for TDX guest boot parameters

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Fri, May 22, 2026, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > +static void __attribute__((used)) common(void)
> > +{
> > +       OFFSET(TD_BOOT_PARAMETERS_CR0, td_boot_parameters, cr0);
> > +       OFFSET(TD_BOOT_PARAMETERS_CR3, td_boot_parameters, cr3);
> > +       OFFSET(TD_BOOT_PARAMETERS_CR4, td_boot_parameters, cr4);
> > +       OFFSET(TD_BOOT_PARAMETERS_GDT, td_boot_parameters, gdtr);
> > +       OFFSET(TD_BOOT_PARAMETERS_IDT, td_boot_parameters, idtr);
> > +       OFFSET(TD_BOOT_PARAMETERS_PER_VCPU, td_boot_parameters, per_vcpu);
> > +       OFFSET(TD_PER_VCPU_PARAMETERS_ESP_GVA, td_per_vcpu_parameters, esp_gva);
> > +       OFFSET(TD_PER_VCPU_PARAMETERS_GUEST_CODE, td_per_vcpu_parameters,
> > +              guest_code);
> > +       DEFINE(SIZEOF_TD_PER_VCPU_PARAMETERS,
> > +              sizeof(struct td_per_vcpu_parameters));
> > +}
> 
> This is neat.
> 
> Sean, is this the preferred way to expose offsets to asm files (or asm
> code blocks) -- as opposed to say using .equ [*]?

For actual .S assembly, yes.  For inline asm, maybe?  If it looks prettier, go
for it.  

> If yes, I can rework my nVMX GPR fixes to use the same approach for
> register offsets. I wonder if the non-TDX part of this patch (i.e.
> Makefile stuff) can be split, then patch 6 and the Makefile stuff can
> land independently and allow development on top.
> 
> I can also split them out and include them in the next version of my
> series, then whichever series lands first will land the offsets
> support.
> 
> WDYT?

Hmm, I'd say keep your series as-is for now.  The OFFSET() infrastructure really
shines for proper assembly.  For what you're doing, AFAICT it's only marginally
better.  So I don't think it's worth juggling dependencies to use it right away,
we can always convert if/when the TDX series lands the fancy stuff.