linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: vmx: speed up MSR bitmap merge

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: <47c89e16-5677-0dab-f791-ed3039f26a93@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:13:27 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, bsd@...hat.com,
        jmattson@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: vmx: speed up MSR bitmap merge


> 
>>> +	nested_vmx_disable_intercept_for_msr(
>>> +		msr_bitmap_l1, msr_bitmap_l0,
>>> +		APIC_BASE_MSR + (APIC_TASKPRI >> 4),
>>> +		MSR_TYPE_W);
>>
>> I'd vote for indenting the parameters properly (even though we exceed 80
>> chars by 1 then :) )
> 
> Ok, will do.  Regarding the WARN, I'm undecided.  I like the idea of not
> calling a function that works on MSR bitmaps unless you have one...

At least from a point of documentation it should be fine:

"return false to indicate that we do not use the hardware"

+gcc will inline this either way.

> 
> Paolo
> 


-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb