Hi Min, What is the difference between TdVmCall (EXIT_REASON_HLT, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) vs TdVmCall (TDVMCALL_HALT, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0); From the VMM stand point both seems the same?

#ve

Hi Min, Sorry for the late review. My comments and a few questions are inline. Thanks -Erdem .... Is this intentional? Returning signed integer but the function returns unsigned integer. +/** + This f

We are backing the current MSR value but when was it initialized before ? Also is not this function supposed to set the Address as the GHCB address? If it is, do we care about the old value? Why are w

Thanks Min! You are right, I also checked it with GCC5 and saw the same output. Thanks for checking it. -Erdem

IsTdx returns 0 when TDX is enabled in CPUID but IsTdxEnabled return 1 when TDX is enabled. Is this intentional? here is how IsTdxEnabled defined. ; If TDX is enabled then EAX will be 1 ; If TDX is di

Why is the SharedBit set? VMM does not care if the sharedbit is set. Actually it should not even be aware of it. So for some reason, MMIO read fails, we are doing a memory read. Why should an MMIO rea

s/virutal/virtual s/case/cases How is this possible considering that once the TD is finalized, there should not be any new vcpu added, right? Am I missing something here? .... is this even used in thi

s/allways/always Also, -1 or 1? PROBE_NOT_TD_GUEST is defined as 1.

IsTdx returns 0 when TDX is enabled in CPUID but IsTdxEnabled return 1 when TDX is enabled. Is this intentional? here is how IsTdxEnabled defined. ; If TDX is enabled then EAX will be 1 ; If TDX is di

s/return/returns s/waist/waste

I have few naive questions. Sorry if the answers were obvious. If I understand correctly, this means that the BFV is encrypted and measured during TD build time. Since CFV is not included in the MRTD,

I agree with Brijesh on that this patch should be divided into smaller ones. Based on https://software.intel.com/content/dam/develop/external/us/en/documents/tdx-module-1eas-v0.85.039.pdf sec 8.1.2 Is

Reviewed-by: Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...>

Are you referring to the PAGE_TYPE_UNMEASURED? Does it not affect the measurement , PAGE_INFO will be still measured, right? I am worried about verifying the measurement. I understand the secret page

Hi all, Sorry for the late reply. I like to add some clarification on "one binary". I feel like the way everyone uses the term "one binary" in the email threads is causing some confusion. As I have tr

Based on the code, what I understand is that the address parameters should be "guest virtual address", not the physical address. But in this patch, all the address parameters are named as PhysicalAddr

Why is RMPADJUST_VMPL_MAX defined as 3? Is it not defined in bits [15:12] of CPUID Fn8000_001F[EBX]? -Erdem

I verified that the values align with the GHCB spec publication: #56421 Revision: 2.00 Reviewed-by: Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...>

I verified that the values align with the GHCB spec publication: #56421 Revision: 2.00 Just one question: is there any reason why GHCB_* defines are decimal while the SVM_EXIT_* are all in hexadecimal

I verified that the values align with the GHCB spec publication: #56421 Revision: 2.00 Reviewed-by: Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...> -Erdem