From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30397C433F5
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:53:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18])
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F789610A6
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:53:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S230413AbhJRKzz (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 18 Oct 2021 06:55:55 -0400
Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:43220 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S229491AbhJRKzy (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 18 Oct 2021 06:55:54 -0400
Received: from zn.tnic (p200300ec2f085700846cd5acb237d67e.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:ec:2f08:5700:846c:d5ac:b237:d67e])
        (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
        (No client certificate requested)
        by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id 0A0601EC01DF;
        Mon, 18 Oct 2021 12:53:42 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim;
        t=1634554422;
        h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
         to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
         content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:  references:references;
        bh=4nuTuWqK/08nFLEj5f2FRFTNFNDe0ksMTiDCZVgq+Gc=;
        b=Iqq5tQFZlbXKgm5HkArnT4BHUPe+d0ENpAgjLLszm9vx5V2W7Dw/763al/WYgAnKcT9L3q
        3KdzL8n1fWr6xta49tO9XyzjrPf7plrCtZCorYUmcco6dy2ePOElCslVbuXHaQHIDFAoOr
        eLEAb2UgmI81tz1VncC31/TPJfQaDSI=
Date:   Mon, 18 Oct 2021 12:53:40 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>, Deep Shah <sdeep@vmware.com>,
        VMware Inc <pv-drivers@vmware.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, Peter H Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 06/11] x86/traps: Add #VE support for TDX guest
Message-ID: <YW1SNMqBcsdqOCsF@zn.tnic>
References: <20211005025205.1784480-1-sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <20211005025205.1784480-7-sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <YV8pE+QYcS/fUe98@zn.tnic>
 <5b7f13b9-6d32-c97c-aaea-4e256a59f90b@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5b7f13b9-6d32-c97c-aaea-4e256a59f90b@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 10:15:22AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> I think it's equivalent to something like a 'pt_regs' or 'stack_info'
> that we pass around in other exception handlers.  It's always stack
> allocated.  It's never dynamically allocated and NULL is never passed
> for some other semantic reason.

Ok, but why is adding that check such a big deal?

Are you saying that nothing else will call tdx_get_ve_info() in the
future so we should trust the passed in *ve pointer blindly or should we
simply add that cheap check just in case.

I don't mind having it without it but wondering why a little defensive
programming is a problem, at all.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette