[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cbc30b0ece76cc02cbfa20321ad9285f2322dfe6.camel@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 12:11:38 +1200
From: Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, len.brown@...el.com,
tony.luck@...el.com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
reinette.chatre@...el.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
peterz@...radead.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com,
isaku.yamahata@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/22] x86/virt/tdx: Shut down TDX module in case of
error
On Mon, 2022-06-27 at 17:03 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 6/27/22 16:59, Kai Huang wrote:
> > If so, in the assembly, I think we can just XOR TDX_SW_ERROR to the %rax and
> > return %rax:
> >
> > 2:
> > /*
> > * SEAMCALL caused #GP or #UD. By reaching here %eax contains
> > * the trap number. Convert trap number to TDX error code by setting
> > * TDX_SW_ERROR to the high 32-bits of %rax.
> > */
> > xorq $TDX_SW_ERROR, %rax
> >
> > How does this look?
>
> I guess it doesn't matter if you know the things being masked together
> are padded correctly, but I probably would have done a straight OR, not XOR.
>
> Otherwise, I think that looks OK. Simplifies the assembly for sure.
Right straight OR is better. Thanks.
--
Thanks,
-Kai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists