| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20151202184528.GA23182@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 10:45:28 -0800
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc: Sinclair Yeh <syeh@...are.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"pv-drivers@...are.com" <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
"linux-graphics-maintainer@...are.com"
<linux-graphics-maintainer@...are.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
"linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] Input: Update vmmouse.c to use the common VMW_PORT
macros
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 09:26:34AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 07:31:24AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 06:21:06PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 04:04:08PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:54:20PM -0800, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:45:27PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Sinclair Yeh <syeh@...are.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > */
> > > > > > >> > -#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4) \
> > > > > > >> > -({ \
> > > > > > >> > - unsigned long __dummy1, __dummy2; \
> > > > > > >> > - __asm__ __volatile__ ("inl %%dx" : \
> > > > > > >> > - "=a"(out1), \
> > > > > > >> > - "=b"(out2), \
> > > > > > >> > - "=c"(out3), \
> > > > > > >> > - "=d"(out4), \
> > > > > > >> > - "=S"(__dummy1), \
> > > > > > >> > - "=D"(__dummy2) : \
> > > > > > >> > - "a"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_MAGIC), \
> > > > > > >> > - "b"(in1), \
> > > > > > >> > - "c"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_CMD_##cmd), \
> > > > > > >> > - "d"(VMMOUSE_PROTO_PORT) : \
> > > > > > >> > - "memory"); \
> > > > > > >> > +#define VMMOUSE_CMD(cmd, in1, out1, out2, out3, out4) \
> > > > > > >> > +({ \
> > > > > > >> > + unsigned long __dummy1 = 0, __dummy2 = 0; \
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Why do we need to initialize dummies?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Because for some commands those parameters to VMW_PORT() can be both
> > > > > > > input and outout.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The vmmouse commands do not use them as input though, so it seems we
> > > > > > are simply wasting CPU cycles setting them to 0 just because we are
> > > > > > using the new VMW_PORT here. Why do we need to switch? What is the
> > > > > > benefit of doing this?
> > > > >
> > > > > There are two reasons. One is to make the code more readable and
> > > > > maintainable. Rather than having mostly similar inline assembly
> > > > > code sprinkled across multiple modules, we can just use the macros
> > > > > and document that.
> > > >
> > > > But the macro is only used here, and the variables aren't used at all,
> > > > so it makes no sense in this file.
> > >
> > > Maybe it's because I didn't CC you on the rest of the series. I wasn't
> > > sure what the proper distribution list is for each part.
> >
> > Use scripts/get_maintainer.pl, that's what it is there for. A number of
> > those patches should go through me, if not all of them, if you want them
> > merged...
> >
> > >
> > > This new macro is also used in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c and
> > > vmw_balloon.c
> >
> > And it's used inconsistantly in those patches (you don't set the dummy
> > variables to 0 in all of them...) Now maybe that's just how the asm
> > functions work, but it's not very obvious as to why this is at all.
> >
> > > > > The second reason is this organization makes some on-going future
> > > > > development easier.
> > > >
> > > > We don't plan for "future" development other than a single patch series,
> > > > as we have no idea what that development is, nor if it will really
> > > > happen. You can always change this file later if you need to, nothing
> > > > is keeping that from happening.
> > >
> > > So the intent of this series is to centralize similar lines of inline
> > > assembly code that are currently used by 3 different kernel modules
> > > to a central place. The new vmware.h [patch 0/6] becomes the one header
> > > to include for common guest-host communication needs.
> >
> > Why can't it go into vmw_vmci_defs.h instead, or your other .h file, why
> > create yet-another-.h-file for your bus? You already have 2, this would
> > make it 3, which seems like a lot...
>
> Umm, you are not saying that vmmouse should include vmci header file(s),
> are you? Because the 2 are unrelated and vmci does not use the
> hypervisor port to communicate with host IIRC.
vmmouse should include some type of "vmware bus" .h file, if it's not
the vmw_* files, what are they for? My point being, I didn't see the
need to add another .h file when we should probably already have one for
this bus, right?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists