linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] virt/coco/sev-guest: Initialize err in handle_guest

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAAH4kHbf6HO05bSwcSsqXTYKTn6wz44mivNY6ZpNrCVzgO3jRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Oct 2022 12:58:12 -0700
From:   Dionna Amalie Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Tom Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virt/coco/sev-guest: Initialize err in handle_guest_request

> And currently we have:
>
> static long snp_guest_ioctl(...)
> {
> ..
>   input.fw_err = 0xff;
> ..
> }
>
> Which I think is an attempt to make fw_err make sense if the FW is
> never called, should we try to maintain that property?

fw_err = 0xff doesn't make sense to me actually. It's not a documented
code that the firmware was never called.
Still, we can simply pass fw_err to snp_issue_guest_request rather
than an unsigned long err, since a null pointer results in an -EINVAL.


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