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: <jpg38h5xitb.fsf@nelium.bos.redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:31:12 -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 22/04/2014 12:25, Bandan Das ha scritto:
>>>> >> +		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 ?
>>
>
> The way you wrote it, j will always be equal to i.

Right, and that's what we want unless we come across an unsupported 
field. We then overwrite the unsupported field with the next
field supported. j this way keeps track of the "real" length.

> 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/