On 11/9/21 10:46 AM, Peter Gonda wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 9:27 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2021, Peter Gonda wrote:
...
SEV: failed to INIT error 0, rc -16
which a bit head scratching without looking at the code. AFAICT, the PSP return
codes aren't intrinsically hex, so printing error as a signed demical and thus
SEV: failed to INIT error -1, rc -16
would be less confusing.
And IMO requiring the caller to initialize error is will be neverending game of
whack-a-mole. E.g. sev_ioctl() fails to set "error" in the userspace structure,
and literally every function exposed via include/linux/psp-sev.h has this same
issue. Case in point, the retry path fails to re-initialize "error" and will
display stale information if the second sev_platform_init() fails without reaching
the PSP.
OK I can update __sev_platform_init_locked() to set error to -1. That
seems pretty reasonable. Tom, is that OK with you?
Yup, I'm ok with using -1.
...
These comments seem fine to me. But I'll refrain from updating
anything here since this seems out-of-scope of this series. Happy to
discuss further and work on that if Tom is interested in those
refactors too.
That's one of those things we've wanted to get around to improving but
just haven't had the time. So, yes, if you wish to refactor the 'error'
related area, that would be great.
Thanks,
Tom
