linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 06/10] KVM: selftests: Add support for vcpu_args

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:   Fri, 24 Jan 2020 11:45:38 +0100
From:   Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Cannon Matthews <cannonmatthews@...gle.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Peter Shier <pshier@...gle.com>,
        Oliver Upton <oupton@...gle.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/10] KVM: selftests: Add support for vcpu_args_set
 to aarch64 and s390x

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:35:43AM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > +void vcpu_args_set(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint32_t vcpuid, unsigned int num, ...)
> > > +{
> > > +	va_list ap;
> > > +
> > > +	TEST_ASSERT(num >= 1 && num <= 8, "Unsupported number of args,\n"
> > > +		    "  num: %u\n",
> > > +		    num);
> 
> Weird line breaking. I see it came from the x86 implementation, but it's
> weird there too... Personally I'd just put it all on one line, because
> my vt100 died two decades ago.
> 
> > > +
> > > +	va_start(ap, num);
> > > +
> > > +	for (i = 0; i < num; i++)
> > > +		set_reg(vm, vcpuid, ARM64_CORE_REG(regs.regs[num]),
>                                                              ^^ should be 'i'

The declaration of 'i' is also missing.

> 
> > > +			va_arg(ap, uint64_t));
> 
> nit: I'd use {} because of the line break. Or just not break the line and
> bust the 80 char "limit" (RIP vt100).
>

Thanks,
drew