Re: [PATCHv7.1 02/30] x86/tdx: Provide common base for SEAMCALL and TDCALL C wrappers

[Dave Hansen]

On 4/3/22 20:19, Kai Huang wrote:
> Btw, I previous suggested perhaps we can just use -1ULL instead of above value
> for TDX_SEAMCALL_VMFAILINVALID, but didn't get response.  The reason is this
> value will only be used when detecting P-SEAMLDR using P-SEAMLDR's SEAMLDR.INFO
> SEAMCALL.  Note your above SW-defined error codes is based on error code
> definition for TDX module, but actually P-SEAMLDR has different error code
> definition:

I suggested moving away from the -1 because it didn't really carry any
additional information.  For folks that have the spec open day in and
day out, it's easy for you to go look up what the components of that -1
_mean_.

It sounds like there's a bug here (mixing up the P-SEAMLDR and TDX
module error ABIs), but that doesn't mean that moving to -1 is the right
answer.

Please just build up an error value the same way it was done for the
software-defined TDX module error codes.