linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: x86: introduce kvm_mmu_invalidate

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, 30 Mar 2020 12:45:34 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: x86: introduce kvm_mmu_invalidate_gva

On 28/03/20 19:26, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> +	if (mmu != &vcpu->arch.guest_mmu) {
> Doesn't need to be addressed here, but this is not the first time in this
> series (the large TLB flushing series) that I've struggled to parse
> "guest_mmu".  Would it make sense to rename it something like nested_tdp_mmu
> or l2_tdp_mmu?
> 
> A bit ugly, but it'd be nice to avoid the mental challenge of remembering
> that guest_mmu is in play if and only if nested TDP is enabled.

No, it's not ugly at all.  My vote would be for shadow_tdp_mmu.

Paolo