[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <abc8f653-0592-b3b9-8af7-64b617645285@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 15:00:19 -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 10/23/2017 09:10 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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?
>
I see your point, if both commands failed then I am now inclined towards
ignoring the error code from shutdown command and add some comments
explaining why its OK. thanks
-Brijesh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists