On 8/12/25 1:52 PM, Kalra, Ashish wrote:
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!
The diff I provided emits exactly this:
kvm_amd: invalid ciphertext_hiding_asids "0x1" or !(0 < 99 < minimum SEV ASID 100)
which means *EITHER*:
invalid ciphertext_hiding_asids "0x1"
*OR*
!(0 < 99 < minimum SEV ASID 100)
but since the latter is 'true', the user is pointed to the former
"0x1" as being the interpretation problem.
Would adding the word "Either" help?:
kvm_amd: Either invalid ciphertext_hiding_asids "0x1", or !(0 < 99 < minimum SEV ASID 100)
?
If not, feel free to separate them: the code is still much cleaner.
Thanks,
Kim
