linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v5 11/45] x86/tdx: Add helpers to check return status codes

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: <aXvEgD69vDTPj4z5@google.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 12:35:12 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, 
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org, 
	Kiryl Shutsemau <kas@...nel.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, kvm@...r.kernel.org, 
	Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, 
	Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>, Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>, 
	Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@...gle.com>, Sagi Shahar <sagis@...gle.com>, 
	Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>, Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>, 
	Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 11/45] x86/tdx: Add helpers to check return status codes

On Thu, Jan 29, 2026, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 1/28/26 17:14, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> ...
> >  	err = tdh_mng_vpflushdone(&kvm_tdx->td);
> > -	if (err == TDX_FLUSHVP_NOT_DONE)
> > +	if (IS_TDX_FLUSHVP_NOT_DONE(err))
> >  		goto out;
> >  	if (TDX_BUG_ON(err, TDH_MNG_VPFLUSHDONE, kvm)) {
> 
> I really despise the non-csopeable, non-ctaggable, non-greppable names
> like this. Sometimes it's unavoidable. Is it really unavoidable here?
>
> Something like this is succinct enough and doesn't have any magic ##
> macro definitions:
> 
> 	TDX_ERR_EQ(err, TDX_FLUSHVP_NOT_DONE)

FWIW, I have zero preference on this.  I included the patch purely because it was
already there.

> But, honestly, if I were trying to push a 45-patch series, I probably
> wouldn't tangle this up as part of it. It's not _that_ desperately in
> need of munging it a quarter of the way into this series.

For sure.  The 45 patches are definitely not intended to land as one.  I posted
the mega-series to propose an end-to-end design for DPAMT + S-EPT hugepage support.
I don't have the bandwidth or brainpower to hash out a KVM design in two different
series.