From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95297EDA for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 10:50:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE88A20751; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 10:50:45 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1675248645; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/qq2vEcUlLVW0N9gJDZcC+n+AVLycIxTQAx78+KCTTM=; b=Z9roHqowOPz3+CoA39a2+ErrKjuJzVHiAWRsMvYdYg2NaJPnLPCvrhZKjUhA90FUATyRrf lgG/NEwD7vOFZQySYJbnXWLiiluyBZOTqic0KIYFH5zXjNUJJNYZka1/mkq2jsNSGCFWhg mdzJTgrF9JGkHaUaFsl2LH/ysccvgus= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1675248645; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/qq2vEcUlLVW0N9gJDZcC+n+AVLycIxTQAx78+KCTTM=; b=DBZo19XBGvm0T52thjU9qgNefGxKbE6kygMLmlZwVqVORMWSCZltE/8tigGjzQMzSgssBM kESaPeYl3k9fL2AQ== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C78E13A10; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 10:50:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id 1BPSJAVE2mOWDQAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Wed, 01 Feb 2023 10:50:45 +0000 Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 11:50:44 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_R=F6del?= To: Tom Lendacky Cc: "linux-coco@lists.linux.dev" , "amd-sev-snp@lists.suse.com" Subject: Re: SVSM Attestation and vTPM specification additions - v0.60 Message-ID: References: <09819cb3-1938-fe86-b948-28aaffbe584e@amd.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-coco@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 10:35:50AM +0100, Jörg Rödel wrote: > It would be great if we have an equivalent to EBUSY in the return codes > to the guest. Something like SVSM_ERR_BUSY or SVSM_ERR_AGAIN, which > tells the guest that some resources needed to fulfill the request are > currently in-use and that the guest should try again later. On a related issue, do we need an extra return code for the case that the SVSM got a fault when trying to access VMPL1 memory? Request processing can fault for various reasons when accessing addresses passed in via requests, should this be reported a SVSM_ERR_INVALID_ADDRESS or is another code needed? Regards, -- Jörg Rödel jroedel@suse.de SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH Frankenstraße 146 90461 Nürnberg Germany (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Boudien Moerman