On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 2:46 PM Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 11/7/24 17:24, Dionna Glaze wrote: > > sev_issue_cmd_external_user is the only function that checks permissions > > before performing its task. With the new GCTX API, it's important to > > establish permission once and have that determination dominate later API > > uses. This is implicitly how ccp has been used by dominating uses of > > sev_do_cmd by a successful sev_issue_cmd_external_user call. > > > > Consider sev_issue_cmd_external_user deprecated by > > checking if a held file descriptor passes file_is_sev, similar to the > > file_is_kvm function. > > > > This also fixes the header comment that the bad file error code is > > -%EINVAL when in fact it is -%EBADF. > > Same comment as before. This commit merely creates a helper function, so > this commit message is not appropriate. > Is this a meta-comment about how the commit presupposes being in a series with a goal, but should have a self-contained commit message? I don't know what "same comment as before" you're referring to. How about this: crypto: ccp: Add file_is_sev to identify access Access to the ccp driver only needs to be determined once, so sev_issue_cmd_external_user called in a loop (e.g. for SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE) does more than it needs to. The file_is_sev function allows the caller to determine access before using sev_do_cmd or other API methods multiple times without extra access checking. This also fixes the header comment that the bad file error code is -%EINVAL when in fact it is -%EBADF. -- -Dionna Glaze, PhD, CISSP, CCSP (she/her)
