From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail02.groups.io (mail02.groups.io [66.175.222.108]) by spool.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA11BAC137F for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 13:22:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=lWeCHNDI9U7orLwnwqqOGSUH6HCS0H9DLOqxYfJx9Wg=; c=relaxed/simple; d=groups.io; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Precedence:List-Subscribe:List-Help:Sender:List-Id:Mailing-List:Delivered-To:Reply-To:List-Unsubscribe-Post:List-Unsubscribe:Content-Type:Content-Disposition; s=20140610; t=1706534534; v=1; b=oznR8I0RKVkNKPcBc+pV7VyNf3iDJngCPpBilYtijKRBUZCms4aed+TbGWy90lhaHOH1X40J rWv3KLmMVgVpf5d2UiKWlgblr9Esz719lS27783gTZjHTRlVi+AkAza/q+/4MtKQ1TmAX60MmF+ g776NJrvSqu/tLcbPfFgj9E0= X-Received: by 127.0.0.2 with SMTP id 6gmUYY7687511xY5aQSsBcvu; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 05:22:14 -0800 X-Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.14341.1706534533895129233 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 05:22:14 -0800 X-Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-504-DBndyCCwMH-Oslg7b3vN8A-1; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 08:22:08 -0500 X-MC-Unique: DBndyCCwMH-Oslg7b3vN8A-1 X-Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.10]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB93A38562C1; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 13:22:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Received: from sirius.home.kraxel.org (unknown [10.39.192.180]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84B8C492BE4; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 13:22:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Received: by sirius.home.kraxel.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E0278180038B; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 14:22:01 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 14:22:01 +0100 From: "Gerd Hoffmann" To: Tom Lendacky Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io, Ard Biesheuvel , Erdem Aktas , Jiewen Yao , Laszlo Ersek , Liming Gao , Michael D Kinney , Min Xu , Zhiguang Liu , Rahul Kumar , Ray Ni , Michael Roth Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 03/16] MdePkg/BaseLib: Add a new VMGEXIT instruction invocation for SVSM Message-ID: References: <38bd6d829d25b89d416fa0f40eb5cc4487a0290f.1706307195.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <38bd6d829d25b89d416fa0f40eb5cc4487a0290f.1706307195.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.10 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Precedence: Bulk List-Subscribe: List-Help: Sender: devel@edk2.groups.io List-Id: Mailing-List: list devel@edk2.groups.io; contact devel+owner@edk2.groups.io Reply-To: devel@edk2.groups.io,kraxel@redhat.com List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Unsubscribe=One-Click List-Unsubscribe: X-Gm-Message-State: DY82tPfbKhiL1kW17uObCsgDx7686176AA= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-GND-Status: LEGIT Authentication-Results: spool.mail.gandi.net; dkim=pass header.d=groups.io header.s=20140610 header.b=oznR8I0R; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=redhat.com (policy=none); spf=pass (spool.mail.gandi.net: domain of bounce@groups.io designates 66.175.222.108 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bounce@groups.io > +global ASM_PFX(AsmVmgExitSvsm) > +ASM_PFX(AsmVmgExitSvsm): > +; > +; NASM doesn't support the vmmcall instruction in 32-bit mode and NASM versions > +; before 2.12 cannot translate the 64-bit "rep vmmcall" instruction into elf32 > +; format. Given that VMGEXIT does not make sense on IA32, provide a stub > +; implementation that is identical to CpuBreakpoint(). In practice, > +; AsmVmgExitSvsm() should never be called on IA32. > +; > + int 3 > + ret Why? I assume because the calling convention is only defined for X64? Why do we need this in the first place if this is never called on IA32? Wouldn't it be better to have an ASSERT(FALSE) for IA32 in the code calling this? take care, Gerd -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#114702): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/114702 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/103986440/7686176 Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [rebecca@openfw.io] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-