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

[Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>]

Sean Christopherson wrote:
> 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.

Ah yea.

> 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.

No this name is fine then.  I got dyslexic with mode vs type, apologies.

> 
> > >  #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.

Sounds good.

>
> Or did you mean something else?

No.

Ira