linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 43/61] KVM: x86: Use KVM cpu caps to mark CR4.LA57 as not-reserved

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:   Tue, 25 Feb 2020 13:22:42 -0800
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 43/61] KVM: x86: Use KVM cpu caps to mark CR4.LA57 as
 not-reserved

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 04:12:28PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 24/02/20 23:08, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> +
> >> +static __always_inline bool kvm_cpu_cap_has(unsigned x86_feature)
> >> +{
> >> +	return kvm_cpu_cap_get(x86_feature);
> >> +}
> > I know this works (and I even checked C99 to make sure that it works not
> > by accident) but I have to admit that explicit '!!' conversion to bool
> > always makes me feel safer :-)
> 
> Same here, I don't really like the automagic bool behavior...

Sounds like I need to add '!!'?