[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <97825322-e53b-153f-4208-62b750b9b341@amd.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 13:13:07 -0500
From: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc: brijesh.singh@....com, x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...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
Subject: Re: [Part2 PATCH v5 12/31] crypto: ccp: Add Secure Encrypted
Virtualization (SEV) command support
On 10/6/17 1:49 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
...
>> +static int sev_wait_cmd_ioc(struct psp_device *psp, unsigned int *reg)
>> +{
>> + psp->sev_int_rcvd = 0;
>> +
>> + wait_event(psp->sev_int_queue, psp->sev_int_rcvd);
> What happens if the command times out and it never sets psp->sev_int_rcvd?
Sorry i missed replying on this comment. We should not run into cases
where after issuing PSP command we do not get an interrupt. I would
prefer to avoid adding the timeout value. At least so far in all my runs
I have not came across this situation but it can happen ;). The tricky
part is, what should be the default timeout value. Depending on the user
inputs some commands can take long time.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists