linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 03/16] virt: sev-guest: Add SNP guest request structure

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]

Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:40:10 +0530
From: "Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, thomas.lendacky@....com, x86@...nel.org,
 kvm@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
 dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, dionnaglaze@...gle.com, pgonda@...gle.com,
 seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 03/16] virt: sev-guest: Add SNP guest request structure

On 2/1/2024 3:59 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 07:28:05PM +0530, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote:
>> Changed to "req" for all the guest request throughout the file. Other "req" 
>> usage are renamed appropriately.
> 
> Yes, better from what I can tell.
> 
> However, I can't apply this patch in order to have a better look, it is
> mangled. Next time, before you send a patch this way, send it yourself
> first and try applying it.
>
> If it doesn't work, throw away your mailer and use a proper one:
> 
> Documentation/process/email-clients.rst

Sorry for that, will fix it. 

> 
>> Subject: [PATCH] virt: sev-guest: Add SNP guest request structure
>>
>> Add a snp_guest_req structure to simplify the function arguments. The
>> structure will be used to call the SNP Guest message request API
>> instead of passing a long list of parameters. Use "req" as variable name
>> for guest req throughout the file and rename other variables appropriately.
>>
>> Update snp_issue_guest_request() prototype to include the new guest request
>> structure and move the prototype to sev_guest.h.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@....com>
>> Tested-by: Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>
> 
> Tested-by: tags must be dropped if you change a patch in a non-trivial
> way. And this change is not that trivial I'd say.
> 
>> ---
>>  .../x86/include/asm}/sev-guest.h              |  18 ++
>>  arch/x86/include/asm/sev.h                    |   8 -
>>  arch/x86/kernel/sev.c                         |  16 +-
>>  drivers/virt/coco/sev-guest/sev-guest.c       | 195 ++++++++++--------
>>  4 files changed, 135 insertions(+), 102 deletions(-)
>>  rename {drivers/virt/coco/sev-guest => arch/x86/include/asm}/sev-guest.h (78%)
> 
> I didn't notice this before: why am I getting a sev-guest.h header in
> arch/x86/?
> 
> Lemme quote again the file paths we agreed upon:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/Yg5nh1RknPRwIrb8@zn.tnic/

I will move it to arch/x86/coco/sev, do we need a separate "include" directory ?

As we are doing this movement, should we move guest messaging related code to arch/x86/coco/sev/guest-msg.c ?

Regards
Nikunj