On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 09:26 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > GetQuote is not part of the "Base" TDVMCALLs and so has a bit in > > GetTdVmCallInfo. We could move it to base? > > Is GetQuote actually optional? TDX without attestation seems rather > pointless. I don't know if that was a consideration for why it got added to the optional category. The inputs were gathered from more than just Linux. > > > Paolo seemed keen on GetTdVmCallInfo exiting to userspace, but this was > > before > > the spec overhaul. > > If GetQuote is truly optional, then exiting to userspace makes sense. But as > above, that seems odd to me. Let us check on adding it to the "base" TDVMCALLs. If there is some good reason, we can post v2 with GetTdVmCallInfo exiting. This will probably be Friday due to the required people being out. Does it work for the timelines? Under the change to add GetQuote to the base TDVMCALLs, patch 1 and 2 would be the only changes anyway. It starts to feel a little fast and loose, but another option is just to take patches 1 and 2, and we can finalize GetTdVmCallInfo at whatever pace is best. Xiaoyao, Binbin do you see any pitfalls to that? If we add GetTdVmCallInfo as a new exit, and we could add the supported TDVMCALLs to struct kvm_tdx_capabilities at that point. If it doesn't make it for 6.16, it gets an opt-in.
