linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v19 028/130] KVM: TDX: Add TDX "architectural" error codes

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, 14 Mar 2024 10:21:42 -0700
From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
To: Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...ux.intel.com>,
	isaku.yamahata@...el.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, isaku.yamahata@...il.com,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, erdemaktas@...gle.com,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
	Sagi Shahar <sagis@...gle.com>, Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>,
	chen.bo@...el.com, hang.yuan@...el.com, tina.zhang@...el.com,
	Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
	Yuan Yao <yuan.yao@...el.com>, Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 028/130] KVM: TDX: Add TDX "architectural" error codes

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 03:45:49PM +0800,
Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 2/27/2024 3:27 AM, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 12:25:30AM -0800,
> > isaku.yamahata@...el.com wrote:
> > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/shared/tdx.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/shared/tdx.h
> > > index fdfd41511b02..28c4a62b7dba 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/shared/tdx.h
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/shared/tdx.h
> > > @@ -26,7 +26,13 @@
> > >   #define TDVMCALL_GET_QUOTE		0x10002
> > >   #define TDVMCALL_REPORT_FATAL_ERROR	0x10003
> > > -#define TDVMCALL_STATUS_RETRY		1
> > Oops, I accidentally removed this constant to break tdx guest build.
> 
> Is this the same as "TDVMCALL_RETRY" added in the patch? Since both tdx
> guest code and VMM share the same header file, maybe it needs another patch
> to change the code in guest or you just follow the naming style of the exist
> code?

The style in other TDX place is without STATUS.  I don't want to play bike
shedding.  For now I'd like to leave TDVMCALL_STATUS_RETRY, not add
TDVMCALL_RETRY, and keep other TDVMCALL_*.
-- 
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>