[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <66c9f41e-868e-0d14-aaec-0858753c86d4@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:32:57 -0500
From: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: brijesh.singh@....com, 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 10/23/17 7:32 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 07:15:30AM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>> I am not sure if I am able to understand your feedback. The
>> sev_platform_shutdown() is called unconditionally.
> How's that:
>
> If sev_do_cmd() fails and sev_do_cmd(SEV_CMD_SHUTDOWN, ...) in
> sev_platform_shutdown() fails, then the first ret from sev_do_cmd() is
> gone.
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 ?
-Brijesh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists