linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86: Check for host supported fields in shadow vmcs

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

Message-ID: <jpg7g6h72ln.fsf@nelium.bos.redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:25:56 -0400
From:	Bandan Das <bsd@...hat.com>
To:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:	kvm@...r.kernel.org, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86: Check for host supported fields in shadow vmcs

Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> writes:

> Il 21/04/2014 15:20, Bandan Das ha scritto:
>> +	for (i = j = 0; i < max_shadow_read_write_fields; i++) {
>> +
>
> Extra empty line.  Not a big deal, but...
>
>> +		switch (shadow_read_write_fields[i]) {
>> +		case GUEST_BNDCFGS:
>> +			if (!vmx_mpx_supported())
>> +				continue;
>> +			break;
>> +		default:
>> +			break;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		if (j < i)
>> +			shadow_read_write_fields[j] =
>> +				shadow_read_write_fields[i];
>> +		j++;
>
> ... you need to respin anyway because the j++ is wrong.  It should be
> inside the "if".  If you prefer, you can put it in the lhs of the

j++ outside the "if" looks right to me. Can you please explain why
you think it shouldn't be that way ?

> assignment, otherwise a separate statement is fine by me too.
>
> Paolo
--
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/