On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 09:25:00AM +0800, Xu Yilun wrote:
> > > > +static int tdx_get_capabilities(struct kvm_tdx_cmd *cmd)
> > > > +{
> > > > + const struct tdx_sysinfo_td_conf *td_conf = &tdx_sysinfo->td_conf;
> > > > + struct kvm_tdx_capabilities __user *user_caps;
> > > > + struct kvm_tdx_capabilities *caps = NULL;
> > > > + int i, ret = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* flags is reserved for future use */
> > > > + if (cmd->flags)
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > +
> > > > + caps = kmalloc(sizeof(*caps), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > + if (!caps)
> > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > > +
> > > > + user_caps = u64_to_user_ptr(cmd->data);
> > > > + if (copy_from_user(caps, user_caps, sizeof(*caps))) {
> > > > + ret = -EFAULT;
> > > > + goto out;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + if (caps->nr_cpuid_configs < td_conf->num_cpuid_config) {
> > > > + ret = -E2BIG;
> > >
> > > How about output the correct num_cpuid_config to userspace as a hint,
> > > to avoid user blindly retries.
> >
> > Hmm do we want to add also positive numbers for errors for this function?
>
> No. I think maybe update the user_caps->nr_cpuid_configs when returning
> -E2BIG. Similar to KVM_GET_MSR_INDEX_LIST.
OK thanks for clarifying, yes that sounds nice.
Regards,
Tony
