target/i386/sev.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
Connor Kuehl (2): sev: use explicit indices for mapping firmware error codes to strings sev: add missing firmware error conditions target/i386/sev.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) -- 2.29.2
On 2/18/21 4:16 PM, Connor Kuehl wrote:
> Connor Kuehl (2):
> sev: use explicit indices for mapping firmware error codes to strings
> sev: add missing firmware error conditions
>
> target/i386/sev.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
To avoid this problem in future (new error code added on the Linux
kernel side) would it be acceptable to add a 3rd patch as:
-- >8 --
diff --git a/target/i386/sev.c b/target/i386/sev.c
index 0f414df02f3..e086d3198e8 100644
--- a/target/i386/sev.c
+++ b/target/i386/sev.c
@@ -155,9 +155,12 @@ sev_platform_ioctl(int fd, int cmd, void *data, int
*error)
static const char *
fw_error_to_str(int code)
{
+ QEMU_BUILD_BUG_ON(SEV_RET_SECURE_DATA_INVALID + 1 == SEV_RET_MAX);
+
if (code < 0 || code >= SEV_FW_MAX_ERROR) {
return "unknown error";
}
+ assert(sev_fw_errlist[code]);
return sev_fw_errlist[code];
}
---
which triggers a build error if scripts/update-linux-headers.sh
added another sev_ret_code entry?
On 2/18/21 9:48 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 2/18/21 4:16 PM, Connor Kuehl wrote:
>> Connor Kuehl (2):
>> sev: use explicit indices for mapping firmware error codes to strings
>> sev: add missing firmware error conditions
>>
>> target/i386/sev.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
Thank you! :-)
> To avoid this problem in future (new error code added on the Linux
> kernel side) would it be acceptable to add a 3rd patch as:
>
> -- >8 --
> diff --git a/target/i386/sev.c b/target/i386/sev.c
> index 0f414df02f3..e086d3198e8 100644
> --- a/target/i386/sev.c
> +++ b/target/i386/sev.c
> @@ -155,9 +155,12 @@ sev_platform_ioctl(int fd, int cmd, void *data, int
> *error)
> static const char *
> fw_error_to_str(int code)
> {
> + QEMU_BUILD_BUG_ON(SEV_RET_SECURE_DATA_INVALID + 1 == SEV_RET_MAX);
> +
> if (code < 0 || code >= SEV_FW_MAX_ERROR) {
> return "unknown error";
> }
> + assert(sev_fw_errlist[code]);
>
> return sev_fw_errlist[code];
> }
> ---
>
> which triggers a build error if scripts/update-linux-headers.sh
> added another sev_ret_code entry?
>
I like this a lot. Should I send a v2 of the series with a third patch
like this or shall I wait to see if these patches get applied then send
something like this as a follow up patch?
Thank you,
Connor
On 2/19/21 3:46 PM, Connor Kuehl wrote:
> On 2/18/21 9:48 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> On 2/18/21 4:16 PM, Connor Kuehl wrote:
>>> Connor Kuehl (2):
>>> sev: use explicit indices for mapping firmware error codes to strings
>>> sev: add missing firmware error conditions
>>>
>>> target/i386/sev.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
>
> Thank you! :-)
>
>> To avoid this problem in future (new error code added on the Linux
>> kernel side) would it be acceptable to add a 3rd patch as:
>>
>> -- >8 --
>> diff --git a/target/i386/sev.c b/target/i386/sev.c
>> index 0f414df02f3..e086d3198e8 100644
>> --- a/target/i386/sev.c
>> +++ b/target/i386/sev.c
>> @@ -155,9 +155,12 @@ sev_platform_ioctl(int fd, int cmd, void *data, int
>> *error)
>> static const char *
>> fw_error_to_str(int code)
>> {
>> + QEMU_BUILD_BUG_ON(SEV_RET_SECURE_DATA_INVALID + 1 == SEV_RET_MAX);
>> +
>> if (code < 0 || code >= SEV_FW_MAX_ERROR) {
>> return "unknown error";
>> }
>> + assert(sev_fw_errlist[code]);
>>
>> return sev_fw_errlist[code];
>> }
>> ---
>>
>> which triggers a build error if scripts/update-linux-headers.sh
>> added another sev_ret_code entry?
>>
>
> I like this a lot. Should I send a v2 of the series with a third patch
> like this or shall I wait to see if these patches get applied then send
> something like this as a follow up patch?
Since I've the patch locally I'll simply send it.
On 2/18/21 9:16 AM, Connor Kuehl wrote: > Connor Kuehl (2): > sev: use explicit indices for mapping firmware error codes to strings > sev: add missing firmware error conditions > > target/i386/sev.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > Ping. Also, I am not sure whose tree these are best suited for. Connor
On 2/18/21 9:16 AM, Connor Kuehl wrote: > Connor Kuehl (2): > sev: use explicit indices for mapping firmware error codes to strings > sev: add missing firmware error conditions > > target/i386/sev.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > Eduardo, Paolo, Richard: ping
Hi Connor, On 3/15/21 3:08 PM, Connor Kuehl wrote: > On 2/18/21 9:16 AM, Connor Kuehl wrote: >> Connor Kuehl (2): >> sev: use explicit indices for mapping firmware error codes to strings >> sev: add missing firmware error conditions >> >> target/i386/sev.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- >> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) >> > > Eduardo, Paolo, Richard: ping Looks too late for 6.0 now. Can you repost/ping after QEMU 6.0 is release? Thanks, Phil.
On 3/22/21 5:18 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > Hi Connor, > > On 3/15/21 3:08 PM, Connor Kuehl wrote: >> On 2/18/21 9:16 AM, Connor Kuehl wrote: >>> Connor Kuehl (2): >>> sev: use explicit indices for mapping firmware error codes to strings >>> sev: add missing firmware error conditions >>> >>> target/i386/sev.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- >>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) >>> >> >> Eduardo, Paolo, Richard: ping > > Looks too late for 6.0 now. > > Can you repost/ping after QEMU 6.0 is release? Sure. Connor
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 09:09:44AM -0500, Connor Kuehl wrote: > On 3/22/21 5:18 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > Hi Connor, > > > > On 3/15/21 3:08 PM, Connor Kuehl wrote: > > > On 2/18/21 9:16 AM, Connor Kuehl wrote: > > > > Connor Kuehl (2): > > > > sev: use explicit indices for mapping firmware error codes to strings > > > > sev: add missing firmware error conditions > > > > > > > > target/i386/sev.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- > > > > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > Eduardo, Paolo, Richard: ping > > > > Looks too late for 6.0 now. > > > > Can you repost/ping after QEMU 6.0 is release? > > Sure. My apologies for not replying before and not reviewing or merging this in time for 6.0. I'm seriously behind on all my upstream maintainer work. -- Eduardo
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:43 PM Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 09:09:44AM -0500, Connor Kuehl wrote: > > On 3/22/21 5:18 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > > On 3/15/21 3:08 PM, Connor Kuehl wrote: > > > > On 2/18/21 9:16 AM, Connor Kuehl wrote: > > > > > Connor Kuehl (2): > > > > > sev: use explicit indices for mapping firmware error codes to strings > > > > > sev: add missing firmware error conditions > > > > > > > > > > target/i386/sev.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- > > > > > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eduardo, Paolo, Richard: ping > > > > > > Looks too late for 6.0 now. > > > > > > Can you repost/ping after QEMU 6.0 is release? > > > > Sure. > > My apologies for not replying before and not reviewing or merging > this in time for 6.0. FYI there is a RESEND: https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg803017.html
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.