linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 05/24] virt: sev-guest: Fix user-visible strings

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: <b4da8dc1-17ea-52da-c8f4-76a8bb6acb16@amd.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:11:01 -0500
From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To: Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
 pgonda@...gle.com, seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 05/24] virt: sev-guest: Fix user-visible strings

On 5/30/24 23:30, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote:
> User-visible abbreviations should be in capitals, ensure messages are
> readable and clear.
> 
> No functional change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@....com>
> ---
>  drivers/virt/coco/sev-guest/sev-guest.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/virt/coco/sev-guest/sev-guest.c b/drivers/virt/coco/sev-guest/sev-guest.c
> index b6be676f82be..5c0cbdad9fa2 100644
> --- a/drivers/virt/coco/sev-guest/sev-guest.c
> +++ b/drivers/virt/coco/sev-guest/sev-guest.c
> @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ static bool is_vmpck_empty(struct snp_guest_dev *snp_dev)
>   */
>  static void snp_disable_vmpck(struct snp_guest_dev *snp_dev)
>  {
> -	dev_alert(snp_dev->dev, "Disabling vmpck_id %d to prevent IV reuse.\n",
> +	dev_alert(snp_dev->dev, "Disabling VMPCK%d to prevent IV reuse.\n",

You use "communication key" after each VMPCK%d below. I prefer this
shorter notation, but whichever way it goes, they should all be the same.

Thanks,
Tom

>  		  vmpck_id);
>  	memzero_explicit(snp_dev->vmpck, VMPCK_KEY_LEN);
>  	snp_dev->vmpck = NULL;
> @@ -849,13 +849,13 @@ static int __init sev_guest_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	ret = -EINVAL;
>  	snp_dev->vmpck = get_vmpck(vmpck_id, secrets, &snp_dev->os_area_msg_seqno);
>  	if (!snp_dev->vmpck) {
> -		dev_err(dev, "invalid vmpck id %d\n", vmpck_id);
> +		dev_err(dev, "Invalid VMPCK%d communication key\n", vmpck_id);
>  		goto e_unmap;
>  	}
>  
>  	/* Verify that VMPCK is not zero. */
>  	if (is_vmpck_empty(snp_dev)) {
> -		dev_err(dev, "vmpck id %d is null\n", vmpck_id);
> +		dev_err(dev, "Empty VMPCK%d communication key\n", vmpck_id);
>  		goto e_unmap;
>  	}
>  
> @@ -911,7 +911,7 @@ static int __init sev_guest_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	if (ret)
>  		goto e_free_ctx;
>  
> -	dev_info(dev, "Initialized SEV guest driver (using vmpck_id %d)\n", vmpck_id);
> +	dev_info(dev, "Initialized SEV guest driver (using VMPCK%d communication key)\n", vmpck_id);
>  	return 0;
>  
>  e_free_ctx: