linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 2/4] KVM: X86: Add Paravirt TLB Shootdown

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, 13 Dec 2017 13:33:02 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/4] KVM: X86: Add Paravirt TLB Shootdown

On 13/12/2017 02:33, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> @@ -53,6 +54,7 @@ struct kvm_steal_time {
>  
>  #define KVM_VCPU_NOT_PREEMPTED      (0 << 0)
>  #define KVM_VCPU_PREEMPTED          (1 << 0)
> +#define KVM_VCPU_SHOULD_FLUSH       (1 << 1)
>  
>  #define KVM_CLOCK_PAIRING_WALLCLOCK 0

Two issues with the name:

1) it doesn't say *what* is flushed

2) in the usual meaning of "should", it would be just a recommendation
i.e. it's fine not to flush the TLB.  This is not true in this case, so
KVM_VCPU_FLUSH_TLB is better.

Paolo