RE: [PATCH 08/10] x86/tdx: Unify TDX_HYPERCALL and TDX_MODULE_CALL assembly

[Huang, Kai]

> On 17.07.23 г. 9:35 ч., Huang, Kai wrote:
> >
> >>> +/* Called from __tdx_hypercall() for unrecoverable failure */
> >>> +static noinstr void __tdx_hypercall_failed(void) {
> >>> +	instrumentation_begin();
> >>> +	panic("TDVMCALL failed. TDX module bug?"); }
> >>
> >> So what's the deal with this instrumentation here. The instruction is
> >> noinstr, so you want to make just the panic call itself
> >> instrumentable?, if so where's the instrumentation_end() cal;?No
> >> instrumentation_end() call. Actually is this complexity really worth it for the
> failure case?
> >>
> >> AFAICS there is a single call site for __tdx_hypercall_failed so why
> >> noot call panic() directly ?
> >
> > W/o this patch, the __tdx_hypercall_failed() is called from the
> > TDX_HYPERCALL assembly, which is in .noinstr.text, and
> > 'instrumentation_begin()' was needed to avoid the build warning I suppose.
> >
> > However now with this patch __tdx_hypercall_failed() is called from
> > __tdx_hypercall() which is a C function w/o 'noinstr' annotation, thus
> > I believe
> > instrumentation_begin() and 'noinstr' annotation are not needed anymore.
> >
> > I didn't notice this while moving this function around and my kernel
> > build test didn't warn me about this.  I'll change in next version.
> >
> > In fact, perhaps this patch perhaps is too big for review.  I will
> > also try to split it to smaller ones.
> 
> Can't you simply call panic() directly? Less going around the code while someone
> is reading it?

I can and will do.