From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EEA7C4320A for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 14:56:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 222606109E for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 14:56:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S240933AbhHMO5U (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Aug 2021 10:57:20 -0400 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de ([195.135.220.28]:44268 "EHLO smtp-out1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S240198AbhHMO5T (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Aug 2021 10:57:19 -0400 Received: from imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.73]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D0162230F; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 14:56:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1628866611; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=slEidIfXYzT+MiWaqkcgYapT9R1n6p0OzdWrLkn7fh8=; b=tBfPzpWLMjXvhI46J2x162VjLl+kTSZN4cLJ9uYOPJk5FPcwdodpsOWl1oj/jonBLpysSj NR785d26AY9tuAeectH8uJiys1iH6W8B7sdJarOSUie381hL/jI1Mo6kyInegunIy4rmFy yupU5fDVOjnbr1lpJzYzoSukAEH4LNk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1628866611; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=slEidIfXYzT+MiWaqkcgYapT9R1n6p0OzdWrLkn7fh8=; b=oCXQ5TfJrh/zLZ4Sfhl9AAyIFKDObOf5SItYpDdLewpJA3EjX5vJhs4ZQ4s71zir3VL2HO yOPDAJ6/VvFmu5Bg== Received: from imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.73]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F7B613806; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 14:56:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id gNxDHTKIFmEeEgAAGKfGzw (envelope-from ); Fri, 13 Aug 2021 14:56:50 +0000 Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 16:56:48 +0200 From: Joerg Roedel To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: Andi Kleen , Borislav Petkov , Andy Lutomirski , Sean Christopherson , Andrew Morton , Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan , David Rientjes , Vlastimil Babka , Tom Lendacky , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Paolo Bonzini , Ingo Molnar , Varad Gautam , Dario Faggioli , x86@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Kirill A. Shutemov" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86: Impplement support for unaccepted memory Message-ID: References: <20210810062626.1012-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20210812101054.5y6oufwwnisebuyy@box.shutemov.name> <20210812202251.hn3c2xykm2l73avu@box.shutemov.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210812202251.hn3c2xykm2l73avu@box.shutemov.name> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 11:22:51PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 12:33:11PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > I think Joerg's question was if TDX has a single ABI for all hypervisors. > > The GHCI specification supports both hypervisor specific and hypervisor > > agnostic calls. But these basic operations like MapGPA are all hypervisor > > agnostic. The only differences would be in the existing hypervisor specific > > PV code. > > My point was that TDX and SEV-SNP going to be different and we need a way > to hook the right protocol for each. Yeah, okay, thanks for the clarification. My misunderstanding was that there could be per-hypervisor contract on what memory is pre-accepted and what Linux is responsible for. Thanks, Joerg