Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/sev: Add defines for GHCB version 2 MSR protocol requests
From: Brijesh Singh via Virtualization <hidden>
Date: 2021-06-23 12:33:21
Also in:
kvm, linux-coco, lkml
On 6/23/21 4:32 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 08:40:00AM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:quoted
From: Brijesh Singh <redacted> Add the necessary defines for supporting the GHCB version 2 protocol. This includes defines for: - MSR-based AP hlt request/response - Hypervisor Feature request/response This is the bare minimum of requests that need to be supported by a GHCB version 2 implementation. There are more requests in the specification, but those depend on Secure Nested Paging support being available. These defines are shared between SEV host and guest support, so they are submitted as an individual patch without users yet to avoid merge conflicts in the future. Signed-off-by: Brijesh Singh <redacted> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> Co-developed-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel <redacted> --- arch/x86/include/asm/sev-common.h | 15 +++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/sev-common.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/sev-common.h index 1cc9e7dd8107..9aa2f29b4c97 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/sev-common.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/sev-common.h@@ -47,6 +47,21 @@ (((unsigned long)reg & GHCB_MSR_CPUID_REG_MASK) << GHCB_MSR_CPUID_REG_POS) | \ (((unsigned long)fn) << GHCB_MSR_CPUID_FUNC_POS)) +/* AP Reset Hold */ +#define GHCB_MSR_AP_RESET_HOLD_REQ 0x006 +#define GHCB_MSR_AP_RESET_HOLD_RESP 0x007 +#define GHCB_MSR_AP_RESET_HOLD_RESULT_POS 12 +#define GHCB_MSR_AP_RESET_HOLD_RESULT_MASK GENMASK_ULL(51, 0) + +/* GHCB Hypervisor Feature Request/Response */ +#define GHCB_MSR_HV_FT_REQ 0x080 +#define GHCB_MSR_HV_FT_RESP 0x081 +#define GHCB_MSR_HV_FT_POS 12 +#define GHCB_MSR_HV_FT_MASK GENMASK_ULL(51, 0) + +#define GHCB_MSR_HV_FT_RESP_VAL(v) \ + ((unsigned long)((v) >> GHCB_MSR_HV_FT_POS) & GHCB_MSR_HV_FT_MASK) +Ok, so I took a critical look at this and it doesn't make sense to have a differently named define each time you need the [63:12] slice of GHCBData. So you can simply use GHCB_DATA(msr_value) instead, see below. Complaints?
Looks good to me. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization