Hi Sagi,
On 10/28/25 2:20 PM, Sagi Shahar wrote:
> TDX guests' registers cannot be initialized directly using
Previous patch used the term "TDX VMs". It will make the changelogs easier to
read if the same terms are used consistently.
> vcpu_regs_set(), hence the stack pointer needs to be initialized by
> the guest itself, running boot code beginning at the reset vector.
Sean highlighted in https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aQN0Qg24tMQ9ckUT@google.com/
that the changelog requirements for selftests should follow
Documentation/process/maintainer-kvm-x86.rst. This means that the changelogs
should start with a short description of the change followed by the context
and problem description (if needed).
>
> Expose the function to allocate the guest stack so that TDX
> initialization code can allocate it itself and skip the allocation in
> vm_arch_vcpu_add() in that case.
TDX still allocates the stack in vm_arch_vcpu_add() though, no?
Perhaps something like below (caveat is that KVM style is new to me
also so consider this a draft):
Introduce kvm_allocate_vcpu_stack() to allocate a vCPU's stack
in preparation for TDX to allocate a vCPU's stack and initialize
its stack pointer.
TDX VMs' registers are protected state and cannot be initialized
using the KVM_SET_REGS ioctl() that is used for normal VMs. A TDX
vCPU's stack address will be a property of the TDX specific boot code
that initializes the vCPUs' stack pointers at boot.
>
> Reviewed-by: Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sagi Shahar <sagis@google.com>
> ---
> .../selftests/kvm/include/x86/processor.h | 2 ++
> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86/processor.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86/processor.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86/processor.h
> index 9caeb3de7df6..dba2b3d558d1 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86/processor.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86/processor.h
> @@ -1120,6 +1120,8 @@ static inline void vcpu_clear_cpuid_feature(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> vcpu_set_or_clear_cpuid_feature(vcpu, feature, false);
> }
>
> +vm_vaddr_t kvm_allocate_vcpu_stack(struct kvm_vm *vm);
> +
> uint64_t vcpu_get_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, uint64_t msr_index);
> int _vcpu_set_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, uint64_t msr_index, uint64_t msr_value);
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86/processor.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86/processor.c
> index 2d1544e8af6c..2898fe4f6de4 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86/processor.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86/processor.c
> @@ -693,12 +693,9 @@ void vcpu_arch_set_entry_point(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, void *guest_code)
> vcpu_regs_set(vcpu, ®s);
> }
>
> -struct kvm_vcpu *vm_arch_vcpu_add(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint32_t vcpu_id)
> +vm_vaddr_t kvm_allocate_vcpu_stack(struct kvm_vm *vm)
> {
> - struct kvm_mp_state mp_state;
> - struct kvm_regs regs;
> vm_vaddr_t stack_vaddr;
> - struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
>
> stack_vaddr = __vm_vaddr_alloc(vm, DEFAULT_STACK_PGS * getpagesize(),
> DEFAULT_GUEST_STACK_VADDR_MIN,
> @@ -719,6 +716,15 @@ struct kvm_vcpu *vm_arch_vcpu_add(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint32_t vcpu_id)
> "__vm_vaddr_alloc() did not provide a page-aligned address");
> stack_vaddr -= 8;
>
> + return stack_vaddr;
> +}
> +
> +struct kvm_vcpu *vm_arch_vcpu_add(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint32_t vcpu_id)
> +{
> + struct kvm_mp_state mp_state;
> + struct kvm_regs regs;
> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
Even though the original code did not do so I'd propose these declarations be in
reverse fir order.
> +
> vcpu = __vm_vcpu_add(vm, vcpu_id);
> vcpu_init_cpuid(vcpu, kvm_get_supported_cpuid());
> vcpu_init_sregs(vm, vcpu);
> @@ -727,7 +733,7 @@ struct kvm_vcpu *vm_arch_vcpu_add(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint32_t vcpu_id)
> /* Setup guest general purpose registers */
> vcpu_regs_get(vcpu, ®s);
> regs.rflags = regs.rflags | 0x2;
> - regs.rsp = stack_vaddr;
> + regs.rsp = kvm_allocate_vcpu_stack(vm);
> vcpu_regs_set(vcpu, ®s);
>
> /* Setup the MP state */
Reinette