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

Date:	Wed, 5 Aug 2015 12:12:51 +0200
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@...ux.intel.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 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?

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/