On 8/12/2025 1:40 PM, Kim Phillips wrote: >> >>> It's not as immediately obvious that it needs to (0 < x < minimum SEV ASID 100). >>> OTOH, if the user inputs "ciphertext_hiding_asids=0x1", they now see: >>> >>> kvm_amd: invalid ciphertext_hiding_asids "0x1" or !(0 < 99 < minimum SEV ASID 100) >>> >>> which - unlike the original v7 code - shows the user that the '0x1' was not interpreted as a number at all: thus the 99 in the latter condition. >> This is incorrect, as 0 < 99 < minimum SEV ASID 100 is a valid condition! > > Precisely, meaning it's the '0x' in '0x1' that's the "invalid" part. > >> And how can user input of 0x1, result in max_snp_asid == 99 ? > > It doesn't, again, the 0x is the invalid part. > >> This is the issue with combining the checks and emitting a combined error message: >> >> Here, kstroint(0x1) fails with -EINVAL and so, max_snp_asid remains set to 99 and then the combined error conveys a wrong information : >> !(0 < 99 < minimum SEV ASID 100) > > It's not, it says it's *OR* that condition. To me this is wrong as !(0 < 99 < minimum SEV ASID 100) is simply not a correct statement! Thanks, Ashish > >> The original message is much simpler to understand and correct too: >> Module parameter ciphertext_hiding_asids (-1) invalid >
