linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 03/16] x86/virt/tdx: Simplify tdmr_get_pamt

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: <23965509-7b15-4dc1-b734-6e66575581a8@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 09:27:30 +0800
From: Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.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>, "Li, Xiaoyao" <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
 "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>, "Zhao, Yan Y"
 <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>, "Wu, Binbin" <binbin.wu@...el.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>,
 "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
 "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
 "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 "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 v4 03/16] x86/virt/tdx: Simplify tdmr_get_pamt_sz()



On 11/25/2025 3:47 AM, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Mon, 2025-11-24 at 17:26 +0800, Binbin Wu wrote:
>> Reviewed-by: Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>
> Thanks.
>
>> One nit below.
>>
>> [...]
>>> @@ -535,26 +518,18 @@ static int tdmr_set_up_pamt(struct tdmr_info *tdmr,
>>>     	 * in overlapped TDMRs.
>>>     	 */
>>>     	pamt = alloc_contig_pages(tdmr_pamt_size >> PAGE_SHIFT, GFP_KERNEL,
>>> -			nid, &node_online_map);
>>> -	if (!pamt)
>>> +				  nid, &node_online_map);
>>> +	if (!pamt) {
>>> +		/*
>>> +		 * tdmr->pamt_4k_base is zero so the
>>> +		 * error path will skip freeing.
>>> +		 */
>>>     		return -ENOMEM;
>> Nit:
>> Do you think it's OK to move the comment up so to avoid multiple lines of
>> comments as well as the curly braces?
> Yea, I think that is a good point. But I'm also thinking that this comment is
> not clear enough. There is no error path to speak of in this function, so maybe:
>
> 	/*
> 	 * tdmr->pamt_4k_base is still zero so the error
> 	 * path of the caller will skip freeing the pamt.
> 	 */
>
> If you agree I will keep your RB.
Yes, please.

>>           /* tdmr->pamt_4k_base is zero so the error path will skip freeing. */
>>           if (!pamt)
>>               return -ENOMEM;