linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] KVM: X86: Introduce handle

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, 4 Apr 2018 19:12:13 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] KVM: X86: Introduce handle_ud()

On 04/04/2018 13:54, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> +{
>> +	enum emulation_result er;
>> +
>> +	er = emulate_instruction(vcpu, EMULTYPE_TRAP_UD);
>> +	if (er == EMULATE_USER_EXIT)
>> +		return 0;
>> +	if (er != EMULATE_DONE)
>> +		kvm_queue_exception(vcpu, UD_VECTOR);
>> +	return 1;
> I would now actually prefer
> 
> if (er == EMULATE_DONE)
> 	return 1 ...

Why?  The return statement would be duplicated.

Paolo