linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] virt/coco/sev-guest: interpret VMM errors from guest request

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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAAH4kHZKSxK1qeBALtiLO2kR7wUQ0K292HYGbipC=vAMgyFLJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Oct 2022 09:20:46 -0700
From:   Dionna Amalie Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>
To:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] virt/coco/sev-guest: interpret VMM errors from guest request

>
> The GHCB spec has to be OS agnostic, so in the specification I would be
> adding a value of 16 so that this matches. Not sure we don't want to just
> use 2. We might be able to say the VMM error codes will follow the POSIX
> standard, but then the currently defined value of 1 doesn't quite match an
> EPERM.
>
> Thoughts?
>

I also thought it was a bit weird. Let's use 2. I'll send a v2.

-- 
-Dionna Glaze, PhD (she/her)