linux-kernel - [PATCHv2 1/7] x86/tdx: Fix typo in comment in __tdx

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: <20230112101407.24327-2-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Jan 2023 13:14:01 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCHv2 1/7] x86/tdx: Fix typo in comment in __tdx_hypercall()

Comment in __tdx_hypercall() points that RAX==0 indicates TDVMCALL
failure which is opposite of the truth: RAX==0 is success.

Fix the comment. No functional changes.

Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
---
 arch/x86/coco/tdx/tdcall.S | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/coco/tdx/tdcall.S b/arch/x86/coco/tdx/tdcall.S
index f9eb1134f22d..74b108e94a0d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/coco/tdx/tdcall.S
+++ b/arch/x86/coco/tdx/tdcall.S
@@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(__tdx_hypercall)
 	tdcall
 
 	/*
-	 * RAX==0 indicates a failure of the TDVMCALL mechanism itself and that
+	 * RAX!=0 indicates a failure of the TDVMCALL mechanism itself and that
 	 * something has gone horribly wrong with the TDX module.
 	 *
 	 * The return status of the hypercall operation is in a separate
-- 
2.38.2