linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] KVM: x86: Move init-only kvm_x86

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:   Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:47:04 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] KVM: x86: Move init-only kvm_x86_ops to separate
 struct

On 23/03/20 17:24, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Sounds cool! (not sure that with only two implementations people won't
> call it 'over-engineered' but cool). 

Yes, something like

#define KVM_X86_OP(name) .name = vmx_##name

(svm_##name for svm.c) and then

	KVM_X86_OP(check_nested_events)

etc.

> My personal wish would just be that
> function names in function implementations are not auto-generated so
> e.g. a simple 'git grep vmx_hardware_setup' works

Yes, absolutely; the function names would still be written by hand.

Paolo

> but the way how we
> fill vmx_x86_ops in can be macroed I guess.