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>
 <CAAH4kHbf6HO05bSwcSsqXTYKTn6wz44mivNY6ZpNrCVzgO3jRg@mail.gmail.com> <Y1pTO+T67EBdlQd9@zn.tnic>
In-Reply-To: <Y1pTO+T67EBdlQd9@zn.tnic>
From:   Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Oct 2022 08:16:13 -0600
Message-ID: <CAMkAt6rKAMscBPVegLhBvZ2K+jCP-bOx5z4Wv23X54MTMDzamA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virt/coco/sev-guest: Initialize err in handle_guest_request
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Dionna Amalie Glaze <dionnaglaze@google.com>, 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

On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 3:45 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:58:12PM -0700, Dionna Amalie Glaze wrote:
> > 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.

Yes this was not what my comments on the patch series intended.

On the host side we have `psp_ret = -1` inside of
__sev_platform_init_locked(). I think defining SEV_RET_NO_FW_CALL as
UINT32_MAX and moving to make all values of psp_ret where the psp is
not yet called would help callers understand errors more clearly.

>
> Yes, pls do that. Such I/O function args are always a PITA anyway.
>
> In retrospect, that handle_guest_request() with gazillion args should
> have been made to take a struct as a single argument and populate it as
> it operates.
>
> The callers then would look at it and decide what to do.
>
> Looking at the callers, they all take members of struct
> snp_guest_request_ioctl and pass them in. A first step in cleaning that
> up could be to simply pass that struct snp_guest_request_ioctl pointer
> instead...
>
> Oh well, in case folks feel bored. :-)

Ah, good idea. If I have some spare cycles.

>
> Thx.
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
>
> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette