linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] KVM: add KVM request variants without barrier

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, 1 Mar 2017 18:02:49 +0100
From:   Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
        James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] KVM: add KVM request variants without barrier

2017-02-28 15:40+0800, Peter Xu:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 03:34:24PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> > diff --git a/arch/mips/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/mips/kvm/emulate.c
>> > index ee4af898bcf6..552ae2b5e911 100644
>> > --- a/arch/mips/kvm/emulate.c
>> > +++ b/arch/mips/kvm/emulate.c
>> > @@ -865,7 +865,7 @@ enum emulation_result kvm_mips_emul_wait(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> >  		 * check if any I/O interrupts are pending.
>> >  		 */
>> >  		if (kvm_request_test_and_clear(KVM_REQ_UNHALT, vcpu)) {
>> > -			clear_bit(KVM_REQ_UNHALT, &vcpu->requests);
>> > +			__kvm_request_clear(KVM_REQ_UNHALT, vcpu);
>> 
>> Shall we just remove above line since we cleared it already?
> 
> Please ignore this since I see patch 4. :-)
> 
> It'll be nice if patch 4 will be before this one, but it's trivial.

I put [4/5] there to demonstrate that this error would have been less
likely with the new naming.  I didn't expect that reviewers would go
through the coccinelle transformation. :)