linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] KVM: SVM: Move and split up svm.c

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: <20200324185545.GB7798@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Mar 2020 11:55:46 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Ashish Kalra <Ashish.Kalra@....com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] KVM: SVM: Move and split up svm.c

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 11:42:21AM -0700, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 11:30 AM Sean Christopherson
> <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 10:41:50AM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > here is a patch-set agains kvm/queue which moves svm.c into its own
> > > subdirectory arch/x86/kvm/svm/ and splits moves parts of it into
> > > separate source files:
> >
> > What are people's thoughts on using "arch/x86/kvm/{amd,intel}" instead of
> > "arch/x86/kvm/{svm,vmx}"?  Maybe this won't be an issue for AMD/SVM, but on
> > the Intel/VMX side, there is stuff in the pipeline that makes using "vmx"
> > for the sub-directory quite awkward.  I wasn't planning on proposing the
> > rename (from vmx->intel) until I could justify _why_, but perhaps it makes
> > sense to bundle all the pain of a reorganizing code into a single kernel
> > version?
> 
> Doesn't VIA have some CPUs that implement VMX?

Yes (and this is why I didn't want broach this subject without being able
to go into details).  On the other hand, the module is kvm_intel...