linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/10] KVM: selftests: Take vcpu pointer instead of id in vm_vcpu

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:   Wed, 15 Apr 2020 17:11:18 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <wainersm@...hat.com>
Cc:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] KVM: selftests: Take vcpu pointer instead of id in
 vm_vcpu_rm()

On 13/04/20 23:26, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> FWIW, I think the whole vcpuid thing is a bad interface, almost all the
> tests end up defining an arbitrary number for the sole VCPU_ID, i.e. the
> vcpuid interface just adds a pointless layer of obfuscation.  I haven't
> looked through all the tests, but returning the vcpu and making the struct
> opaque, same as kvm_vm, seems like it would yield more readable code with
> less overhead.

Yes, I agree.  This was in the original Google submission, I didn't like
it either but I didn't feel like changing it and I wouldn't mind if
someone does the work...

Paolo