Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v2 10/69] KVM: TDX: Print the name of SEAMCALL status code | From | Paolo Bonzini <> | Date | Tue, 6 Jul 2021 15:25:35 +0200 |
| |
On 03/07/21 00:04, isaku.yamahata@intel.com wrote: > From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com> > > SEAMCALL error code is not intuitive to tell what's wrong in the > SEAMCALL, print the error code name along with it. > > Signed-off-by: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com> > --- > arch/x86/kvm/boot/seam/tdx_common.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > arch/x86/kvm/vmx/seamcall.h | 7 +++++-- > 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/boot/seam/tdx_common.c b/arch/x86/kvm/boot/seam/tdx_common.c > index d803dbd11693..4fe352fb8586 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/boot/seam/tdx_common.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/boot/seam/tdx_common.c > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ > #include <asm/kvm_boot.h> > > #include "vmx/tdx_arch.h" > +#include "vmx/tdx_errno.h" > > /* > * TDX system information returned by TDSYSINFO. > @@ -165,3 +166,23 @@ void tdx_keyid_free(int keyid) > ida_free(&tdx_keyid_pool, keyid); > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tdx_keyid_free); > + > +static struct tdx_seamcall_status { > + u64 err_code; > + const char *err_name; > +} tdx_seamcall_status_codes[] = {TDX_SEAMCALL_STATUS_CODES}; > + > +const char *tdx_seamcall_error_name(u64 error_code) > +{ > + struct tdx_seamcall_status status; > + int i; > + > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tdx_seamcall_status_codes); i++) { > + status = tdx_seamcall_status_codes[i]; > + if ((error_code & TDX_SEAMCALL_STATUS_MASK) == status.err_code) > + return status.err_name; > + } > + > + return "Unknown SEAMCALL status code"; > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tdx_seamcall_error_name); > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/seamcall.h b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/seamcall.h > index 2c83ab46eeac..fbb18aea1720 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/seamcall.h > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/seamcall.h > @@ -37,11 +37,14 @@ static inline u64 _seamcall(u64 op, u64 rcx, u64 rdx, u64 r8, u64 r9, u64 r10, > _seamcall(SEAMCALL_##op, (rcx), (rdx), (r8), (r9), (r10), (ex)) > #endif > > +const char *tdx_seamcall_error_name(u64 error_code); > + > static inline void __pr_seamcall_error(u64 op, const char *op_str, > u64 err, struct tdx_ex_ret *ex) > { > - pr_err_ratelimited("SEAMCALL[%s] failed on cpu %d: 0x%llx\n", > - op_str, smp_processor_id(), (err)); > + pr_err_ratelimited("SEAMCALL[%s] failed on cpu %d: %s (0x%llx)\n", > + op_str, smp_processor_id(), > + tdx_seamcall_error_name(err), err); > if (ex) > pr_err_ratelimited( > "RCX 0x%llx, RDX 0x%llx, R8 0x%llx, R9 0x%llx, R10 0x%llx, R11 0x%llx\n", >
You can squash it in the earlier patch that introduced __pr_seamcall_error.
Paolo
| |