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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:44:11 -0700
From:   Sagi Shahar <sagis@...gle.com>
To:     Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
        Connor Kuehl <ckuehl@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     isaku.yamahata@...il.com,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
        Kai Huang <kai.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>,
        Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...ux.intel.com>,
        Yuan Yao <yuan.yao@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 66/69] KVM: TDX: Add "basic" support for building
 and running Trust Domains

 On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 3:06 PM, Isaku Yamahata
<isaku.yamahata@...el.com> wrote:
> Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 66/69] KVM: TDX: Add "basic" support for
> building and running Trust Domains
>
>
> +static int tdx_map_gpa(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> +       gpa_t gpa = tdvmcall_p1_read(vcpu);
> +       gpa_t size = tdvmcall_p2_read(vcpu);
> +
> +       if (!IS_ALIGNED(gpa, 4096) || !IS_ALIGNED(size, 4096) ||
> +           (gpa + size) < gpa ||
> +           (gpa + size) > vcpu->kvm->arch.gfn_shared_mask << (PAGE_SHIFT + 1))
> +               tdvmcall_set_return_code(vcpu, TDG_VP_VMCALL_INVALID_OPERAND);
> +       else
> +               tdvmcall_set_return_code(vcpu, TDG_VP_VMCALL_SUCCESS);
> +
> +       return 1;
> +}

This function looks like a no op in case of success. Is this
intentional? Is this mapping handled somewhere else later on?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists