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;
Date:   Mon, 18 Oct 2021 12:53:40 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        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>,
        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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 06/11] x86/traps: Add #VE support for TDX guest
Message-ID: <YW1SNMqBcsdqOCsF@zn.tnic>
References: <20211005025205.1784480-1-sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <20211005025205.1784480-7-sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <YV8pE+QYcS/fUe98@zn.tnic>
 <5b7f13b9-6d32-c97c-aaea-4e256a59f90b@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5b7f13b9-6d32-c97c-aaea-4e256a59f90b@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 10:15:22AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> I think it's equivalent to something like a 'pt_regs' or 'stack_info'
> that we pass around in other exception handlers.  It's always stack
> allocated.  It's never dynamically allocated and NULL is never passed
> for some other semantic reason.

Ok, but why is adding that check such a big deal?

Are you saying that nothing else will call tdx_get_ve_info() in the
future so we should trust the passed in *ve pointer blindly or should we
simply add that cheap check just in case.

I don't mind having it without it but wondering why a little defensive
programming is a problem, at all.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette