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;
Date:   Thu, 22 Dec 2022 16:31:16 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@google.com>,
        Thomas Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirsky <luto@kernel.org>,
        John Allen <john.allen@amd.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/4] crypto: ccp - Name -1 return value as
 SEV_RET_NO_FW_CALL
Message-ID: <Y6R4RC45WXs3Micd@zn.tnic>
References: <20221207010210.2563293-1-dionnaglaze@google.com>
 <20221207010210.2563293-2-dionnaglaze@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221207010210.2563293-2-dionnaglaze@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 01:02:07AM +0000, Dionna Glaze wrote:
> From: Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>
> 
> The PSP can return a "firmware error" code of -1 in circumstances where
> the PSP is not actually called. To make this protocol unambiguous, the
> value is named SEV_RET_NO_FW_CALL.
> 
> Cc: Thomas Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> Cc: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> Cc: Andy Lutomirsky <luto@kernel.org>
> Cc: John Allen <john.allen@amd.com>
> Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@google.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/virt/coco/sev-guest.rst |  2 +-
>  drivers/crypto/ccp/sev-dev.c          | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
>  include/uapi/linux/psp-sev.h          |  7 +++++++
>  3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

Looks good, did some minor touch ups ontop, see below.

@Tom: Ack/Rev-by?

@Herbert: ok to carry this through tip?

Thx.

---
From: Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 01:02:07 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] crypto: ccp - Name -1 return value as SEV_RET_NO_FW_CALL

The PSP can return a "firmware error" code of -1 in circumstances where
the PSP has not actually been called. To make this protocol unambiguous,
the name the value SEV_RET_NO_FW_CALL.

  [ bp: Massage a bit, get rid of the funky ->init_function local
    function pointer. ]

Signed-off-by: Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov (AMD) <bp@alien8.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221207010210.2563293-2-dionnaglaze@google.com
---
 Documentation/virt/coco/sev-guest.rst |  4 ++--
 drivers/crypto/ccp/sev-dev.c          | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
 include/uapi/linux/psp-sev.h          |  7 +++++++
 3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/virt/coco/sev-guest.rst b/Documentation/virt/coco/sev-guest.rst
index bf593e88cfd9..aa3e4c6a1f90 100644
--- a/Documentation/virt/coco/sev-guest.rst
+++ b/Documentation/virt/coco/sev-guest.rst
@@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ along with a description:
 The guest ioctl should be issued on a file descriptor of the /dev/sev-guest device.
 The ioctl accepts struct snp_user_guest_request. The input and output structure is
 specified through the req_data and resp_data field respectively. If the ioctl fails
-to execute due to a firmware error, then fw_err code will be set otherwise the
-fw_err will be set to 0x00000000000000ff.
+to execute due to a firmware error, then fw_err code will be set. Otherwise, fw_err
+will be set to 0x00000000ffffffff, i.e., the lower 32-bits are -1.
 
 The firmware checks that the message sequence counter is one greater than
 the guests message sequence counter. If guest driver fails to increment message
diff --git a/drivers/crypto/ccp/sev-dev.c b/drivers/crypto/ccp/sev-dev.c
index 06fc7156c04f..ac205f78a595 100644
--- a/drivers/crypto/ccp/sev-dev.c
+++ b/drivers/crypto/ccp/sev-dev.c
@@ -440,12 +440,19 @@ static int __sev_init_ex_locked(int *error)
 	return __sev_do_cmd_locked(SEV_CMD_INIT_EX, &data, error);
 }
 
+static inline int __sev_do_init_locked(int *psp_ret)
+{
+	if (sev_init_ex_buffer)
+		return __sev_init_ex_locked(psp_ret);
+	else
+		return __sev_init_locked(psp_ret);
+}
+
 static int __sev_platform_init_locked(int *error)
 {
 	struct psp_device *psp = psp_master;
 	struct sev_device *sev;
-	int rc = 0, psp_ret = -1;
-	int (*init_function)(int *error);
+	int rc = 0, psp_ret = SEV_RET_NO_FW_CALL;
 
 	if (!psp || !psp->sev_data)
 		return -ENODEV;
@@ -456,15 +463,12 @@ static int __sev_platform_init_locked(int *error)
 		return 0;
 
 	if (sev_init_ex_buffer) {
-		init_function = __sev_init_ex_locked;
 		rc = sev_read_init_ex_file();
 		if (rc)
 			return rc;
-	} else {
-		init_function = __sev_init_locked;
 	}
 
-	rc = init_function(&psp_ret);
+	rc = __sev_do_init_locked(&psp_ret);
 	if (rc && psp_ret == SEV_RET_SECURE_DATA_INVALID) {
 		/*
 		 * Initialization command returned an integrity check failure
@@ -473,9 +477,11 @@ static int __sev_platform_init_locked(int *error)
 		 * initialization function should succeed by replacing the state
 		 * with a reset state.
 		 */
-		dev_err(sev->dev, "SEV: retrying INIT command because of SECURE_DATA_INVALID error. Retrying once to reset PSP SEV state.");
-		rc = init_function(&psp_ret);
+		dev_err(sev->dev,
+"SEV: retrying INIT command because of SECURE_DATA_INVALID error. Retrying once to reset PSP SEV state.");
+		rc = __sev_do_init_locked(&psp_ret);
 	}
+
 	if (error)
 		*error = psp_ret;
 
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/psp-sev.h b/include/uapi/linux/psp-sev.h
index 91b4c63d5cbf..f44514653f5f 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/psp-sev.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/psp-sev.h
@@ -36,6 +36,13 @@ enum {
  * SEV Firmware status code
  */
 typedef enum {
+	/*
+	 * This error code is not in the SEV spec but is added to convey that
+	 * there was an error that prevented the SEV firmware from being called.
+	 * The SEV API error codes are 16 bits, so the -1 value will not overlap
+	 * with possible values from the specification.
+	 */
+	SEV_RET_NO_FW_CALL = -1,
 	SEV_RET_SUCCESS = 0,
 	SEV_RET_INVALID_PLATFORM_STATE,
 	SEV_RET_INVALID_GUEST_STATE,
-- 
2.35.1


-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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