Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 06/11] x86/traps: Add #VE support for TDX guest
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>, Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>,
        VMware Inc <pv-drivers@vmware.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, Peter H Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20211005025205.1784480-1-sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <20211005025205.1784480-7-sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <YV8pE+QYcS/fUe98@zn.tnic>
From:   "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <9693938e-4171-90ec-1bbe-ee88e6452bd0@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 Oct 2021 10:22:16 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/78.0 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YV8pE+QYcS/fUe98@zn.tnic>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 10/7/21 10:06 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Same question as before - why do you need to clear this @out thing above
> when __tdx_module_call() will overwrite it?

Now checking again, I think we don't to initialize the @out pointer. I will
fix this in call cases.

But for tdx_get_ve_info() case, we are updating the @ve pointer without
checking the tdcall return value and __tdx_module_call() will update the
@out only if tdcall is successful. Currently due to @out=0 initialization,
this logic does not cause any issue. But to properly fix it, I need to
check for tdcall return value before updating the @ve value.

> 
> What you should do instead is check that @ve pointer which you get
> passed in - it might be NULL.

Current use case of tdx_get_ve_info() can never be NULL. But if you
want to add this check for possible future issues, I can do it.

arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:1205:	ret = tdx_get_ve_info(&ve);
arch/x86/kernel/tdx.c:945:	if (tdx_get_ve_info(&ve))


-- 
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer