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

Date:   Wed, 25 Mar 2020 14:49:10 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        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 24/03/20 19:55, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> 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?

For now I would keep it svm and vmx.  I would expect that other Intel
three-letter acronyms would still use most of the vmx concepts (e.g.
VMCS) not unlike Hyper-V's eVMCS, so the existing directory name makes
sense (possibly with vmx.c split further to something like vmx-common.c
or intel-common.c).

Paolo