On 12.06.2025 00:14, Sergii Dmytruk wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 09:17:29AM -0700, ross.philip...@oracle.com wrote:
>>> +static inline void *txt_init(void)
>>> +{
>>> +    void *txt_heap;
>>> +
>>> +    /* Clear the TXT error register for a clean start of the day. */
>>> +    txt_write(TXTCR_ERRORCODE, 0);
>>> +
>>> +    txt_heap = _p(txt_read(TXTCR_HEAP_BASE));
>>> +
>>> +    if ( txt_os_mle_data_size(txt_heap) < sizeof(struct txt_os_mle_data) ||
>>> +         txt_os_sinit_data_size(txt_heap) < sizeof(struct 
>>> txt_os_sinit_data) )
>>> +        txt_reset(SLAUNCH_ERROR_GENERIC);
>>
>> I know the list of error codes pulled in are from the patches for Linux
>> Secure Launch which seems right. The Xen work is free to add more specific
>> error codes e.g. somewhere like here. We could even consider using regions
>> in the vendor error code space for different things like generic errors vs
>> architecture specific ones vs etc.
> 
> I think some codes were already added and this is the only place where
> SLAUNCH_ERROR_GENERIC is used, not really sure why, will add a couple
> more.  By the way, the new errors were inserted in the middle making
> about half of the errors out of sync with Linux, should Xen and Linux be
> in sync?

As the uses isolated to Xen and Linux respectively, or are the values
propagated between the two in some way? In the former case there's no
need for them to stay in sync, I think. Whereas in the latter case them
staying in sync would want enforcing somehow, if at all possible.

Jan

Reply via email to