On Thu, Aug 21, 2025, Kim Phillips wrote: > On 8/21/25 5:58 AM, Kalra, Ashish wrote: > > On 8/21/2025 5:30 AM, Kim Phillips wrote: > > > On 8/20/25 6:23 PM, Kalra, Ashish wrote: > > > > On 8/20/2025 5:45 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > > > On 8/20/25 1:50 PM, Ashish Kalra wrote: > > > > > > + /* > > > > > > + * If ciphertext hiding is enabled, the joint SEV-ES/SEV-SNP > > > > > > + * ASID range is partitioned into separate SEV-ES and SEV-SNP > > > > > > + * ASID ranges, with the SEV-SNP range being [1..max_snp_asid] > > > > > > + * and the SEV-ES range being [max_snp_asid..max_sev_es_asid]. > > > > > [max_snp_asid + 1..max_sev_es_asid] > > > > > ? > > > > Yes. > > > So why wouldn't you have left Sean's original "(max_snp_asid..max_sev_es_asid]" as-is? > > > > > > Kim > > > > > Because that i believe is a typo and the correct SEV-ES range is > > [max_snp_asid + 1..max_sev_es_asid]. > > It's not, though. > > [max_snp_asid..max_sev_es_asid] > > and > > (max_snp_asid..max_sev_es_asid] > > are two completely different things. Yeah, inclusive versus exclusive (I'm quite proud that I remembered which was which, _and_ that I got it right :-D). > You also modified Sean's Documentation/ changes. A consistent "joint > SEV-ES+SEV-SNP" is preferred. FWIW, I don't have a strong preference on the exact verbiage, so long as it's consistent.
