On Tue, 2025-06-10 at 09:50 -0700, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
Why do we need an opt-in interface instead of a way to expose which exit's are
supported by KVM? I would think the need for a TDVMCALL opt-in interface would
only come up if there was a bad guest that was making TDVMCALLs that it did not
see in GetTdVmCallInfo.
So that we would actually require an opt-in is not
guaranteed.
Another consideration could be how to handle GetQuote for an eventual TDVMCALL
opt-in interface, should it be needed. The problem would be GetQuote would be
opted in by default and make the interface weird. But we may not want to have a
TDVMCall specific opt-in interface. There could be other TDX behaviors that we
need to opt-in around. In which case the opt-in interface could be more generic,
and by implementing the TDVMCall opt-in interface ahead of time we would end up
with two opt-in interfaces instead of one.
Not sure what does "overlap" mean here.Oh, and there already is a hypercall exit opt-in interface, so
So how about just adding a field to struct kvm_tdx_capabilities to describe the
KVM TDVMcalls? Or some other place? But don't invent an opt-in interface
until/if we need it.
KVM_CAP_TDX_USER_EXIT_TDVMCALL would overlap with it, right?