linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 15/19] KVM: Provide common implementation for generic dirty log functions

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:10:52 -0800
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@....com>,
        Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@...at.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 15/19] KVM: Provide common implementation for generic
 dirty log functions

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 04:39:39PM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> writes:
> > Unless it's functionally incorrect (Vitaly?), going with option (2) and
> > naming the hook kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_memslot() seems like the obvious
> > choice, e.g. the final cleanup gives this diff stat:
> 
> (I apologize again for not replying in time)

No worries, didn't hinder me in the slightest as I was buried in other
stuff last week anyways.

> I think this is a valid approach and your option (2) would also be my
> choice. I also don't think there's going to be a problem when (if)
> Hyper-V adds support for PML (eVMCSv2?).

Cool, thanks!