linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] x86/sev: Add support for the RMPREAD instruction

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: <20241021174907.GJZxaUE-vizLL1mSlF@fat_crate.local>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 19:49:07 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
	Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] x86/sev: Add support for the RMPREAD instruction

On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 12:10:55PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> The input value is a 64-bit value and on output the return code is in
> EAX, a 32-bit value. So the use of the "=a" (ret) for output and "a"
> (pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) for input is more accurate.

Oh, they differ in width. Ok.

> It's not a complicated statement and is much clearer to me.
> 
> I can change it if you really want the "+a" thing (including changing
> the ret variable to a u64), but would prefer not to do that.

Nah, it'll get uglier if you do. Let's keep it this way.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette