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: <535B7F8D.10609@redhat.com>
Date:	Sat, 26 Apr 2014 11:42:37 +0200
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Bandan Das <bsd@...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

Il 22/04/2014 21:31, Bandan Das ha scritto:
> 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.

Doh, brain fart.

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/