>
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int sanitize_cmrs(struct cmr_info *cmr_array, int cmr_num)
>
> Since this function only deals with tdx_cmr_array, why pass it
> as argument?
I received comments to use cmr_num as argument and pass tdx_cmr_num to
sanitize_cmrs() and finalize it at the end of this function. In this case I
think it's better to pass tdx_cmr_array as argument. It also saves some typing
(tdx_cmr_array vs cmr_array) in sanitize_cmrs().
>
> > +{
> > + int i, j;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Intel TDX module spec, 20.7.3 CMR_INFO:
> > + *
> > + * TDH.SYS.INFO leaf function returns a MAX_CMRS (32) entry
> > + * array of CMR_INFO entries. The CMRs are sorted from the
> > + * lowest base address to the highest base address, and they
> > + * are non-overlapping.
> > + *
> > + * This implies that BIOS may generate invalid empty entries
> > + * if total CMRs are less than 32. Skip them manually.
> > + */
> > + for (i = 0; i < cmr_num; i++) {
> > + struct cmr_info *cmr = &cmr_array[i];
> > + struct cmr_info *prev_cmr = NULL;
>
> Why not keep declarations together at the top of the function?
Why? They are only used in this for-loop.
>
> > +
> > + /* Skip further invalid CMRs */
> > + if (!cmr_valid(cmr))
> > + break;
> > +
> > + if (i > 0)
> > + prev_cmr = &cmr_array[i - 1];
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * It is a TDX firmware bug if CMRs are not
> > + * in address ascending order.
> > + */
> > + if (prev_cmr && ((prev_cmr->base + prev_cmr->size) >
> > + cmr->base)) {
> > + pr_err("Firmware bug: CMRs not in address ascending order.\n");
> > + return -EFAULT;
> > + }
>
> Since above condition is only true for i > 0 case, why not combine them
> together if (i > 0) {...}
It will make an additional ident for the above if() {} to check prev_cmr and
cmr. I don't see it is better?
--
Thanks,
-Kai
