linux-kernel - Re: [Part2 PATCH v6 16/38] crypto: ccp: Implement SEV_PEK

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:10:32 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Gary Hook <gary.hook@....com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Part2 PATCH v6 16/38] crypto: ccp: Implement SEV_PEK_GEN ioctl
 command

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 08:32:57AM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> If both the command fails then we return status from the last command.
> IIRC, in my previous patches I was returning status from sev_do_cmd()
> instead of sev_platform_shutdown() but based on our previous
> communication I thought you asked to return the status from the last
> failed command. Did I miss understood ?

So my problem is that it looks strange that you save an error value from
sev_do_cmd() but you don't look at it. And as I said in the other mail,
you should either ignore it and say so in a comment why it is OK to
ignore it or handle it but not overwrite it without looking at it.

Does that make more sense?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--