Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221013160040.2858732-1-dionnaglaze@google.com>
 <20221013160040.2858732-3-dionnaglaze@google.com> <ba5b3553-370f-3114-b920-5efe9b40ab0f@amd.com>
In-Reply-To: <ba5b3553-370f-3114-b920-5efe9b40ab0f@amd.com>
From:   Dionna Amalie Glaze <dionnaglaze@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Oct 2022 09:20:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAH4kHZKSxK1qeBALtiLO2kR7wUQ0K292HYGbipC=vAMgyFLJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] virt/coco/sev-guest: interpret VMM errors from guest request
To:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>,
        Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

>
> The GHCB spec has to be OS agnostic, so in the specification I would be
> adding a value of 16 so that this matches. Not sure we don't want to just
> use 2. We might be able to say the VMM error codes will follow the POSIX
> standard, but then the currently defined value of 1 doesn't quite match an
> EPERM.
>
> Thoughts?
>

I also thought it was a bit weird. Let's use 2. I'll send a v2.

-- 
-Dionna Glaze, PhD (she/her)