Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 4 Apr 2022 06:51:25 -0700 | From | Dave Hansen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv7.1 02/30] x86/tdx: Provide common base for SEAMCALL and TDCALL C wrappers |
| |
On 4/3/22 20:19, Kai Huang wrote: > Btw, I previous suggested perhaps we can just use -1ULL instead of above value > for TDX_SEAMCALL_VMFAILINVALID, but didn't get response. The reason is this > value will only be used when detecting P-SEAMLDR using P-SEAMLDR's SEAMLDR.INFO > SEAMCALL. Note your above SW-defined error codes is based on error code > definition for TDX module, but actually P-SEAMLDR has different error code > definition:
I suggested moving away from the -1 because it didn't really carry any additional information. For folks that have the spec open day in and day out, it's easy for you to go look up what the components of that -1 _mean_.
It sounds like there's a bug here (mixing up the P-SEAMLDR and TDX module error ABIs), but that doesn't mean that moving to -1 is the right answer.
Please just build up an error value the same way it was done for the software-defined TDX module error codes.
| |