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: <20221012002323.2015637-1-dionnaglaze@google.com> <CAMkAt6qj-iHzk+FqCGh5z4EZHB9BzOfqES8RmjgYXs3CSg3CXQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMkAt6qj-iHzk+FqCGh5z4EZHB9BzOfqES8RmjgYXs3CSg3CXQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Dionna Amalie Glaze <dionnaglaze@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Oct 2022 12:58:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAH4kHbf6HO05bSwcSsqXTYKTn6wz44mivNY6ZpNrCVzgO3jRg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virt/coco/sev-guest: Initialize err in handle_guest_request
To:     Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Tom Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

> And currently we have:
>
> static long snp_guest_ioctl(...)
> {
> ..
>   input.fw_err = 0xff;
> ..
> }
>
> Which I think is an attempt to make fw_err make sense if the FW is
> never called, should we try to maintain that property?

fw_err = 0xff doesn't make sense to me actually. It's not a documented
code that the firmware was never called.
Still, we can simply pass fw_err to snp_issue_guest_request rather
than an unsigned long err, since a null pointer results in an -EINVAL.


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