linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] KVM: MMU: fully check zero bits for sptes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:53:29 +0800
From:	Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:	gleb@...nel.org, mtosatti@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ru.pchel@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] KVM: MMU: fully check zero bits for sptes



On 08/05/2015 06:12 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 05/08/2015 06:04, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> -	for_each_shadow_entry_lockless(vcpu, addr, iterator, spte)
>> +	for_each_shadow_entry_lockless(vcpu, addr, iterator, spte) {
>> +		leaf = iterator.level;
>> +
>> +		if (!root)
>> +			root = leaf;
>> +
>> +		sptes[leaf - 1] = spte;
>> +
>
> I'm a bit undecided between this and open-coding the macro:
>
>          for (shadow_walk_init(&iterator, vcpu, addr), root = iterator.level;
>               shadow_walk_okay(&iterator);
>               __shadow_walk_next(&iterator, spte)) {
>                  leaf = iterator.level;
>                  spte = mmu_spte_get_lockless(iterator.sptep);
>
> Any second opinions?

Your adjustment is good to me, i do not have other ideas... :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/