linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 01/16] x86/tdx: Move all TDX error defines into <asm/shared/tdx

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: <ce717a9a5a7539b38b19115e0d3fa11306ddf9c3.camel@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 23:09:05 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com" <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>
CC: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev"
	<linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>, "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>, "Zhao, Yan
 Y" <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>, "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com"
	<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "kas@...nel.org" <kas@...nel.org>,
	"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>, "mingo@...hat.com"
	<mingo@...hat.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, "pbonzini@...hat.com"
	<pbonzini@...hat.com>, "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com"
	<kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, "Annapurve, Vishal"
	<vannapurve@...gle.com>, "Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>, "bp@...en8.de"
	<bp@...en8.de>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/16] x86/tdx: Move all TDX error defines into
 <asm/shared/tdx_errno.h>

On Tue, 2025-09-23 at 13:49 +0800, Binbin Wu wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * SW-defined error codes.
> > + *
> > + * Bits 47:40 == 0xFF indicate Reserved status code class that never used
> > by
> > + * TDX module.
> > + */
> > +#define TDX_ERROR			_BITULL(63)
> > +#define TDX_NON_RECOVERABLE		_BITULL(62)
> 
> TDX_ERROR and TDX_NON_RECOVERABLE are defined in TDX spec as the classes of
> TDX
> Interface Functions Completion Status.
> 
> For clarity, is it better to move the two before the "SW-defined error codes"
> comment?

This hunk is a direct copy, any reason to change it in this patch?