Re: [PATCH] x86/tdx: Handle load_unaligned_zeropad() page-cross to a shared page

[Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>]

On 5/17/22 10:40, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>
>> ve_info is a software structure.  Why not just add a:
>>
>> 	bool ip_adjusted;
>>
>> which defaults to false, then we have:
>>
>> 	/*
>> 	 * Adjust RIP if the exception was handled
>> 	 * but RIP was not adjusted.
>> 	 */
>> 	if (!ret && !ve_info->ip_adjusted)
>> 		regs->ip += ve_info->instr_len;
>>
>> One other oddity I just stumbled upon:
>>
>> static bool handle_mmio(struct pt_regs *regs, struct ve_info *ve)
>> {
>> ...
>>         ve->instr_len = insn.length;
>>
>> Why does that need to override 've->instr_len'?  What was wrong with the
>> gunk in r10 that came out of TDX_GET_VEINFO?
> TDX module doesn't decode MMIO instruction and does not provide valid size
> of it. We had to do it manually, based on decoding.

That's worth a comment, don't you think?  I'd add one both in where the
ve_info is filled and where ve->instr_len is adjusted.

> Given that we had to adjust IP in handle_mmio() anyway, do you still think
> "ve->instr_len = 0;" is wrong? I dislike ip_adjusted more.

Something is wrong about it.

You could call it 've->instr_bytes_to_handle' or something.  Then it
makes actual logical sense when you handle it to zero it out.  I just
want it to be more explicit when the upper levels need to do something.

Does ve->instr_len==0 both when the TDX module isn't providing
instruction sizes *and* when no handling is necessary?  That seems like
an unfortunate logical multiplexing of 0.