linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] KVM: x86: move nested-related 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]

Message-ID: <4c69d11e-40ab-fdb8-6f32-fdf7298d1277@redhat.com>
Date:   Sat, 18 Apr 2020 11:55:56 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] KVM: x86: move nested-related kvm_x86_ops to a
 separate struct

On 17/04/20 21:11, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Ya, my vote would be to copy by value as well.

I'd rather avoid useless churn, because

	vmx_x86_ops.nested = vmx_nested_ops;

is much uglier than

	.nested = &vmx_nested_ops,

and with static calls the latter would not have any performance downside.

> I'd also be in favor of
> dropping the _ops part, e.g.
> 
>   struct kvm_x86_ops {
>         struct kvm_x86_nested_ops nested;
> 
>         ...
>   };
> 
> and drop the "nested" parts from the ops, e.g.
> 
>   check_nested_events() -> check_events()

Agreed on both, I'll send v2 with these changes.

Paolo