Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] KVM: x86: Refactor __kvm_emulate_hypercall() into a macro

[Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>]

On 12/12/24 08:32, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 10/12/24 22:03, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> What I do deeply care about though is consistency within KVM, across vendors and
>> VM flavors.  And that means that guest registers absolutely need to be captured in
>> vcpu->arch.regs[].
> 
> In general, TDX host VMM does not know what guest register
> values are.
> 
> This case, where some GPRs are passed to the host VMM via
> arguments of the TDG.VP.VMCALL TDCALL, is really just a
> side effect of the choice of argument passing rather than
> any attempt to share guest registers with the host VMM.
> 
> It could be regarded as more consistent to never use
> vcpu->arch.regs[] for confidential guests.

Yes, that's where I stand as well.  There's reasons to use 
vcpu->arch.regs[] when "decrypted" values are available, and reasons to 
not use it at all.  Both of them could be considered the more consistent 
choice, and I think I prefer slightly the latter, but it's definitely 
not a hill to die on...

Paolo