linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/13] KVM: x86: save/load state on SMM switch

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: <5552F5FB.40005@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 May 2015 08:58:03 +0200
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Bandan Das <bsd@...hat.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	rkrcmar@...hat.com, guangrong.xiao@...ux.intel.com,
	Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@...el.com>, wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/13] KVM: x86: save/load state on SMM switch



On 13/05/2015 01:56, Bandan Das wrote:
> I think it's ok just to replace the offset number with a name.
> If you are concerned about readability, we could probably wrap the
> "for loops" in the math calculations with a more serious sounding macro
> eg. "#define foreach_smm_offset(val, start_offset, jump, count)" :)

That doesn't help.  The problem is that the for loops assume that you
know that the offsets are at a constant distance, plus the distance.
This is already not trivial for the registers (is RAX at the highest or
lowest offset); but it could even be worse than hardcoded offsets for
selectors and descriptor caches.

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/