linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/9] KVM: arm64: Provide a PV

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, 7 Aug 2019 14:39:13 +0100
From:   Steven Price <steven.price@....com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] KVM: arm64: Provide a PV_TIME device to user space

On 03/08/2019 18:34, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 13:51:13 +0100
> Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> [forgot that one]
> 
>> On Fri,  2 Aug 2019 15:50:14 +0100
>> Steven Price <steven.price@....com> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> +static int __init kvm_pvtime_init(void)
>>> +{
>>> +	kvm_register_device_ops(&pvtime_ops, KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PV_TIME);
>>> +
>>> +	return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +late_initcall(kvm_pvtime_init);
> 
> Why is it an initcall? So far, the only initcall we've used is the one
> that initializes KVM itself. Can't we just the device_ops just like we
> do for the vgic?

So would you prefer a direct call from init_subsystems() in
virt/kvm/arm/arm.c?

The benefit of initcall is just that it keeps the code self-contained.
In init_subsystems() I'd either need a #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64 or a dummy
function for arm.

Steve