On 5/20/24 03:32, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> In other words, I think this as the foundational justification for the
>> rest of the series leaves a little to be desired.
> See the patch below. Is it what you had in mind?
>
> This patch saves ~2K of code, comparing to ~3K for my patchset:
>
> add
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 07:02:25PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 5/17/24 16:19, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > The function will be used from inline assembly to handle most TDVMCALL
> > cases.
>
> Perhaps add that the calling convention is designed to allow using the asm
> constraints a/b/c/d/S/
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 08:21:37AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/17/24 07:19, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > TDCALL calls are centralized into a few megawrappers that take the
> > struct tdx_module_args as input. Most of the call sites only use a few
> > arguments, but they have to zero out unuse
On 5/17/24 16:19, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
The function will be used from inline assembly to handle most TDVMCALL
cases.
Perhaps add that the calling convention is designed to allow using the
asm constraints a/b/c/d/S/D and keep the asm blocks simpler?
Paolo
On 5/17/24 07:19, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> TDCALL calls are centralized into a few megawrappers that take the
> struct tdx_module_args as input. Most of the call sites only use a few
> arguments, but they have to zero out unused fields in the structure to
> avoid data leaks to the VMM. This lead
TDCALL calls are centralized into a few megawrappers that take the
struct tdx_module_args as input. Most of the call sites only use a few
arguments, but they have to zero out unused fields in the structure to
avoid data leaks to the VMM. This leads to the compiler generating
inefficient code: dozen
