Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sat, 31 Dec 2022 14:47:26 +0000
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
To:     Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        jroedel@suse.de, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        ardb@kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, seanjc@google.com,
        vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com, jmattson@google.com,
        luto@kernel.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, slp@redhat.com,
        pgonda@google.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com, rientjes@google.com,
        dovmurik@linux.ibm.com, tobin@ibm.com, bp@alien8.de,
        vbabka@suse.cz, kirill@shutemov.name, ak@linux.intel.com,
        tony.luck@intel.com, marcorr@google.com,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, alpergun@google.com,
        dgilbert@redhat.com, ashish.kalra@amd.com, harald@profian.com,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
        Pavan Kumar Paluri <papaluri@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v7 37/64] KVM: SVM: Add KVM_SNP_INIT command
Message-ID: <Y7BLfq9TB3iYIUjp@kernel.org>
References: <20221214194056.161492-1-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <20221214194056.161492-38-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <Y7BG6pSuoZsBQYrx@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y7BG6pSuoZsBQYrx@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

A couple of fixups.

On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 02:27:57PM +0000, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/ccp/sev-dev.c b/drivers/crypto/ccp/sev-dev.c
> index 6c4fdcaed72b..462c9aaa2e7e 100644
> --- a/drivers/crypto/ccp/sev-dev.c
> +++ b/drivers/crypto/ccp/sev-dev.c
> @@ -1381,6 +1381,12 @@ static int __sev_snp_init_locked(int *error)
>  	if (sev->snp_initialized)
>  		return 0;
>  
> +	if (!sev_version_greater_or_equal(SNP_MIN_API_MAJOR, SNP_MIN_API_MINOR)) {
> +		dev_dbg(sev->dev, "SEV-SNP support requires firmware version >= %d:%d\n",
> +			SNP_MIN_API_MAJOR, SNP_MIN_API_MINOR);
> +		return -ENODEV;

        return 0;

It is not a failure case anyway.

> +	}
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * The SNP_INIT requires the MSR_VM_HSAVE_PA must be set to 0h
>  	 * across all cores.
> @@ -2313,25 +2319,19 @@ void sev_pci_init(void)
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> +	rc = sev_snp_init(&error, true);
> +	if (rc != -ENODEV)


if (rc)

Because other wise there would need to be nasty "if (rc && rc != ENODEV)"
so that this does not happen:

[    9.321588] ccp 0000:49:00.1: SEV-SNP: failed to INIT error 0x0

BR, Jarkko