linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 01/12] x86/tdx: Consolidate TDX error handling

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: <7f1aaf559a4f93f63f8e996938cfd957e151cb50.camel@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 15:03:58 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: "Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>, "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	"Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, "x86@...nel.org"
	<x86@...nel.org>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "Huang, Kai"
	<kai.huang@...el.com>, "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com"
	<kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	"linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev" <linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>,
	"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "Zhao, Yan Y"
	<yan.y.zhao@...el.com>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 01/12] x86/tdx: Consolidate TDX error handling

On Thu, 2025-07-31 at 16:53 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2025, Rick P Edgecombe wrote:
> > On Thu, 2025-07-31 at 16:31 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2025, Rick P Edgecombe wrote:
> > > > So STATUS_OPERAND_BUSY() seems like an ok thing to try next for v3 of this
> > > > series at least. Unless anyone has any strong objections ahead of time.
> > > 
> > > Can you make it IS_TDX_STATUS_OPERAND_BUSY() so that it's obviously a check and
> > > not a statement/value, and to scope it to TDX?
> > 
> > It's a mouthful, but I can live with it. Yea, it def should have TDX in the name.
> 
> IS_TDX_STATUS_OP_BUSY?

Ehh, would nicer to have it closer to what is in the TDX docs. The worst would be to read
TDX_STATUS_OP_BUSY, then have to look at the value to figure out which error code it actually was.

Maybe just drop STATUS and have IS_TDX_OPERAND_BUSY()? It still loses the ERR part, which made it look
like IS_ERR().