[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y44dohVKo7MAqmxK@zn.tnic>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 17:34:42 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Tom Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
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>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Venu Busireddy <venu.busireddy@...cle.com>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Michael Sterritt <sterritt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/4] x86/sev: Change snp_guest_issue_request's fw_err
On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 11:00:38PM +0000, Dionna Glaze wrote:
> The GHCB specification declares that the firmware error value for a
> guest request will be stored in the lower 32 bits of EXIT_INFO_2.
> The upper 32 bits are for the VMM's own error code. The fw_err argument
> is thus a misnomer, and callers will need access to all 64 bits.
>
> The type of unsigned long also causes problems, since sw_exit_info2 is
> u64 (unsigned long long) vs the argument's previous unsigned long*.
> The signature change requires the follow-up change to
> drivers/virt/coco/sev-guest to use the new expected type in order to
> compile.
>
> The firmware might not even be called, so we bookend the call with the
Please use passive voice in your commit message: no "we" or "I",
etc, and describe your changes in imperative mood.
Personal pronouns are ambiguous in text, especially with so many
parties/companies/etc developing the kernel so let's avoid them please.
Otherwise, LGTM.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists