linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] x86/hyper-v: move synic/stimer control structures definitions to hyperv-tlfs.h

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: <0b29458b-a605-8f87-bbaa-62a90cba5e2b@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:40:01 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Roman Kagan <rkagan@...tuozzo.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        "Michael Kelley (EOSG)" <Michael.H.Kelley@...rosoft.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] x86/hyper-v: move synic/stimer control structures
 definitions to hyperv-tlfs.h

On 27/11/18 19:48, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 02:10:49PM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Roman Kagan <rkagan@...tuozzo.com> writes:
>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 04:47:29PM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>> I personally tend to prefer masks over bitfields, so I'd rather do the
>>> consolidation in the opposite direction: use the definitions in
>>> hyperv-tlfs.h and replace those unions/bitfields elsewhere.  (I vaguely
>>> remember posting such a patchset a couple of years ago but I lacked the
>>> motivation to complete it).
>>
>> Are there any known advantages of using masks over bitfields or the
>> resulting binary code is the same?
> 
> Strictly speaking bitwise ops are portable while bitfields are not, but
> I guess this is not much of an issue with gcc which is dependable to
> produce the right thing.
> 
> I came to dislike the bitfields for the false feeling of atomicity of
> assignment while most of the time they are read-modify-write operations.
> 
> And no, I don't feel strong about it, so if nobody backs me on this I
> give up :)

I agree, but I am deferring to the Hyper-V maintainers.  KVM is mostly
reading these structs.

Paolo