[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20005c9e-fd82-5c96-7bfb-8b072e5d66e6@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 14:57:11 -0500
From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Sergio Lopez <slp@...hat.com>, Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dov Murik <dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com>,
Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@....com>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, tony.luck@...el.com,
marcorr@...gle.com, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH Part1 v5 33/38] x86/sev: Provide support for SNP guest
request NAEs
On 8/27/21 1:07 PM, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> On 8/27/21 12:44 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 10:19:28AM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
...
>>> +
>>> +/*
>>> + * The error code when the data_npages is too small. The error code
>>> + * is defined in the GHCB specification.
>>> + */
>>> +#define SNP_GUEST_REQ_INVALID_LEN 0x100000000ULL
>> so basically
>>
>> BIT_ULL(32)
>
> Noted.
The main thing about this is that it is an error code from the HV on
extended guest requests. The HV error code sits in the high-order 32-bits
of the SW_EXIT_INFO_2 field. So defining it either way seems a bit
confusing. To me, the value should just be 1ULL and then it should be
shifted when assigning it to the SW_EXIT_INFO_2.
Thanks,
Tom
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists