Re: [PATCH v3 04/22] x86/boot/slaunch-early: implement early initialization

[Sergii Dmytruk <sergii.dmytruk@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 10:02:33AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 12.06.2025 00:14, Sergii Dmytruk wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 09:17:29AM -0700, ross.philipson@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>> +static inline void *txt_init(void)
> >>> +{
> >>> +    void *txt_heap;
> >>> +
> >>> +    /* Clear the TXT error register for a clean start of the day. */
> >>> +    txt_write(TXTCR_ERRORCODE, 0);
> >>> +
> >>> +    txt_heap = _p(txt_read(TXTCR_HEAP_BASE));
> >>> +
> >>> +    if ( txt_os_mle_data_size(txt_heap) < sizeof(struct txt_os_mle_data) 
> >>> ||
> >>> +         txt_os_sinit_data_size(txt_heap) < sizeof(struct 
> >>> txt_os_sinit_data) )
> >>> +        txt_reset(SLAUNCH_ERROR_GENERIC);
> >>
> >> I know the list of error codes pulled in are from the patches for Linux
> >> Secure Launch which seems right. The Xen work is free to add more specific
> >> error codes e.g. somewhere like here. We could even consider using regions
> >> in the vendor error code space for different things like generic errors vs
> >> architecture specific ones vs etc.
> >
> > I think some codes were already added and this is the only place where
> > SLAUNCH_ERROR_GENERIC is used, not really sure why, will add a couple
> > more.  By the way, the new errors were inserted in the middle making
> > about half of the errors out of sync with Linux, should Xen and Linux be
> > in sync?
>
> As the uses isolated to Xen and Linux respectively, or are the values
> propagated between the two in some way? In the former case there's no
> need for them to stay in sync, I think. Whereas in the latter case them
> staying in sync would want enforcing somehow, if at all possible.
>
> Jan

The uses are independent, the error list was copied probably because
error conditions are similar.  I'll remove errors unused in Xen.

Regards