On 11/12/24 13:47, Dionna Amalie Glaze wrote: > 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. I made the same comment in your previous series. > How about this: > > crypto: ccp: Add file_is_sev to identify access > > Access to the ccp driver only needs to be determined once, so once per KVM ioctl invocation > 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. Yes, I like this better. Thanks, Tom > > > >
