linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: X86: Make fpu allocation a common function

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: <f00edd02-7d25-54f4-0972-c702e8254016@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Oct 2019 18:36:14 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: X86: Make fpu allocation a common function

On 15/10/19 16:36, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> On 15/10/19 12:53, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>> A very theoretical question: why do we have 'struct vcpu' embedded in
>>> vcpu_vmx/vcpu_svm and not the other way around (e.g. in a union)? That
>>> would've allowed us to allocate memory in common code and then fill in
>>> vendor-specific details in .create_vcpu().
>> Probably "because it's always been like that" is the most accurate answer.
>>
> OK, so let me make my question a bit less theoretical: would you be in
> favor of changing the status quo? :-)

Not really, it would be a lot of churn for debatable benefit.

Paolo