linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] KVM: x86: CPUID emulation and tracing fixes

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: <7d17c0c1-cdf0-f8cc-0cc4-4b9dda0b514d@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:45:26 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.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, Pu Wen <puwen@...on.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] KVM: x86: CPUID emulation and tracing fixes

On 05/03/20 18:12, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>> In theory, everything up to the refactoring is non-controversial, i.e. we
>>> can bikeshed the refactoring without delaying the bug fixes.
>> Even the refactoring itself is much less controversial.  I queued
>> everything, there's always time to unqueue.
> Looks like the build-time assertions don't play nice with older versions of
> gcc :-(

Yes, I was quite surprised that they worked.  I suppose you could write
a macro that checks against 'G', 'e', 'n', 'u', 'i', 'n', 'e', 'I', 'n',
't', 'e', 'l'...

Paolo