On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 12:25 PM Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. OK so when I actually sat down to work on this. I realized this is bigger than I thought. If we want to have error == -1 for all return from psp-sev.h functions where the PSP isn't called yet there are a lot of changes. For example if CONFIG_CRYPTO_DEV_SP_PSP is not defined all these stubs need to be to set `*errror == -`, basically all these functions need to be updated. So to keep this series more targeted. I think I'll drop the error here. And just have this patch print the rc value. If what I said above seems reasonable I'll do those error refactors. Are people envisioning something else for the error fixups? > > Thanks, > Tom > > >
