linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v19 030/130] KVM: TDX: Add helper functions to print TDX SEAMCALL error

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: <76e918cf-44ef-4e9b-9e56-84256b637398@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 12:09:57 +1300
From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
CC: <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>, <chen.bo@...el.com>, <hang.yuan@...el.com>,
	<tina.zhang@...el.com>, Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>, Yuan Yao
	<yuan.yao@...el.com>, <isaku.yamahata@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 030/130] KVM: TDX: Add helper functions to print TDX
 SEAMCALL error


> Does it make sense?
> 
> void pr_tdx_error(u64 op, u64 error_code)
> {
>          pr_err_ratelimited("SEAMCALL (0x%016llx) failed: 0x%016llx\n",
>                             op, error_code);
> }

Should we also have a _ret version?

void pr_seamcall_err(u64 op, u64 err)
{
	/* A comment to explain why using the _ratelimited() version? */
	pr_err_ratelimited(...);
}

void pr_seamcall_err_ret(u64 op, u64 err, struct tdx_module_args *arg)
{
	pr_err_seamcall(op, err);
	
	pr_err_ratelimited(...);
}

(Hmm... if you look at the tdx.c in TDX host, there's similar code 
there, and again, it was a little bit annoying when I did that..)

Again, if we just use seamcall_ret() for ALL SEAMCALLs except VP.ENTER, 
we can simply have one..

> 
> void pr_tdx_sept_error(u64 op, u64 error_code, const union tdx_sept_entry *entry,
> 		       const union tdx_sept_level_state *level_state)
> {
> #define MSG \
>          "SEAMCALL (0x%016llx) failed: 0x%016llx entry 0x%016llx level_state 0x%016llx\n"
>          pr_err_ratelimited(MSG, op, error_code, entry->raw, level_state->raw);
> }

A higher-level wrapper to print SEPT error is fine to me, but do it in a 
separate patch.