Re: [PATCH 0/2] SEV firmware error list touchups

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

On 2/19/21 3:46 PM, Connor Kuehl wrote:
> On 2/18/21 9:48 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> On 2/18/21 4:16 PM, Connor Kuehl wrote:
>>> Connor Kuehl (2):
>>>    sev: use explicit indices for mapping firmware error codes to strings
>>>    sev: add missing firmware error conditions
>>>
>>>   target/i386/sev.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>>>   1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
> 
> Thank you! :-)
> 
>> To avoid this problem in future (new error code added on the Linux
>> kernel side) would it be acceptable to add a 3rd patch as:
>>
>> -- >8 --
>> diff --git a/target/i386/sev.c b/target/i386/sev.c
>> index 0f414df02f3..e086d3198e8 100644
>> --- a/target/i386/sev.c
>> +++ b/target/i386/sev.c
>> @@ -155,9 +155,12 @@ sev_platform_ioctl(int fd, int cmd, void *data, int
>> *error)
>>   static const char *
>>   fw_error_to_str(int code)
>>   {
>> +    QEMU_BUILD_BUG_ON(SEV_RET_SECURE_DATA_INVALID + 1 == SEV_RET_MAX);
>> +
>>       if (code < 0 || code >= SEV_FW_MAX_ERROR) {
>>           return "unknown error";
>>       }
>> +    assert(sev_fw_errlist[code]);
>>
>>       return sev_fw_errlist[code];
>>   }
>> ---
>>
>> which triggers a build error if scripts/update-linux-headers.sh
>> added another sev_ret_code entry?
>>
> 
> I like this a lot. Should I send a v2 of the series with a third patch
> like this or shall I wait to see if these patches get applied then send
> something like this as a follow up patch?

Since I've the patch locally I'll simply send it.