Re: [PATCH v1 1/8] x86/virt/tdx: Stop treating tdx_global_metadata.h as auto-generated
Dave Hansen <[email protected]> Tue, 4 Aug 2026 16:43:43 -0700
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.kvm,dev.linux.lists.linux-coco,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 8/4/26 04:29, Chao Gao wrote: > From: Dave Hansen <[email protected]> > > The TDX module exposes its capabilities and limits through "Global > Scope Metadata" fields, defined in the Intel TDX Module ABI spec. > The kernel mirrors a small subset of those fields in C structures > (for example, struct tdx_sys_info_version/features). Those structures > are populated by reading each field via the TDH.SYS.RD SEAMCALL. > > Today the header that holds these structures is generated by an > out-of-tree script from a JSON file listing all of the TDX module's > metadata. That made it trivial to add a new field, but everything > else suffered for it: > > - The header is opaque to anyone who doesn't have the script and > the JSON file handy, and the "Automatically generated" tag tells > reviewers their edits will be clobbered. > - The script ships outside the tree, so reproducing changes > requires fetching it from a mailing list link. > - The structures are short and stable; the script's value over > a hand-edited header is small. Well, and the big one: after we started doing this, the "ABI Definitions for IntelĀ® TDX" was declared to be not an ABI. So, even if we code to the JSON, there's no guarantee the JSON will be stable. <sigh> Honestly that's what matters. The script and all the other fluff is just noise. > Signed-off-by: Chao Gao <[email protected]> So, I'm curious: What made you feel OK to sign-off on this? I'm not judging. I'm open-minded on this. All I know is *I* wasn't ready to sign-off on this. I really want to know what your thought process was.