If the MLE kernel is being powered off, rebooted or halted,
then SEXIT must be called. Note that the SEXIT GETSEC leaf
can only be called after a machine_shutdown() has been done on
these paths. The machine_shutdown() is not called on a few paths
like when poweroff action does not have a poweroff callback (into
ACPI code) or when an emergency reset is done. In these cases,
just the TXT registers are finalized but SEXIT is skipped.

Signed-off-by: Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@oracle.com>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/reboot.c | 10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/reboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/reboot.c
index 964f6b0a3d68..9069415e0788 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/reboot.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/reboot.c
@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
 #include <linux/objtool.h>
 #include <linux/pgtable.h>
 #include <linux/kexec.h>
+#include <linux/slaunch.h>
 #include <acpi/reboot.h>
 #include <asm/io.h>
 #include <asm/apic.h>
@@ -778,6 +779,7 @@ static void native_machine_restart(char *__unused)
 
 	if (!reboot_force)
 		machine_shutdown();
+	slaunch_finalize(!reboot_force);
 	__machine_emergency_restart(0);
 }
 
@@ -788,6 +790,9 @@ static void native_machine_halt(void)
 
 	tboot_shutdown(TB_SHUTDOWN_HALT);
 
+	/* SEXIT done after machine_shutdown() to meet TXT requirements */
+	slaunch_finalize(1);
+
 	stop_this_cpu(NULL);
 }
 
@@ -796,8 +801,12 @@ static void native_machine_power_off(void)
 	if (kernel_can_power_off()) {
 		if (!reboot_force)
 			machine_shutdown();
+		slaunch_finalize(!reboot_force);
 		do_kernel_power_off();
+	} else {
+		slaunch_finalize(0);
 	}
+
 	/* A fallback in case there is no PM info available */
 	tboot_shutdown(TB_SHUTDOWN_HALT);
 }
@@ -825,6 +834,7 @@ void machine_shutdown(void)
 
 void machine_emergency_restart(void)
 {
+	slaunch_finalize(0);
 	__machine_emergency_restart(1);
 }
 
-- 
2.39.3

On 4/21/25 09:27, Ross Philipson wrote:
> @@ -788,6 +790,9 @@ static void native_machine_halt(void)
>  
>  	tboot_shutdown(TB_SHUTDOWN_HALT);
>  
> +	/* SEXIT done after machine_shutdown() to meet TXT requirements */
> +	slaunch_finalize(1);

This is the kind of stuff that needs to get fixed up before this series
can go _anywhere_.

"TXT requirements" is not useful to a maintainer. *WHAT* requirement?
*WHY* must it be done this way?

This code is unmaintainable as it stands.

On 4/21/25 3:57 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 4/21/25 09:27, Ross Philipson wrote:
>> @@ -788,6 +790,9 @@ static void native_machine_halt(void)
>>   
>>   	tboot_shutdown(TB_SHUTDOWN_HALT);
>>   
>> +	/* SEXIT done after machine_shutdown() to meet TXT requirements */
>> +	slaunch_finalize(1);
> 
> This is the kind of stuff that needs to get fixed up before this series
> can go _anywhere_.
> 
> "TXT requirements" is not useful to a maintainer. *WHAT* requirement?
> *WHY* must it be done this way?
> 
> This code is unmaintainable as it stands.

Sorry we understand the frustration especially for maintainers. We have 
gone over your responses so far. We will do whatever it takes to make 
this patch set maintainable and acceptable to upstream. I think we are 
starting to understand what the main issues are with the set overall 
from what you are pointing out.

Thank you for your feedback,
Ross