linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 2/9] KVM: VMX: Set guest CET MSRs per KVM and host configuration

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: <d92b9fea-95b6-73ce-c3b5-47dad95c5d42@redhat.com>
Date:   Sat, 25 Apr 2020 15:26:30 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        jmattson@...gle.com, yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 2/9] KVM: VMX: Set guest CET MSRs per KVM and host
 configuration

On 23/04/20 18:27, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>  
>> +static bool is_cet_mode_allowed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 mode_mask)
> CET itself isn't a mode.  And since this ends up being an inner helper for
> is_cet_supported(), I think __is_cet_supported() would be the way to go.
> 
> Even @mode_mask is a bit confusing without the context of it being kernel
> vs. user.  The callers are very readable, e.g. I'd much prefer passing the
> mask as opposed to doing 'bool kernel'.  Maybe s/mode_mask/cet_mask?  That
> doesn't exactly make things super clear, but at least the reader knows the
> mask is for CET features.

What about is_cet_state_supported and xss_states?

Paolo

>> +{
>> +	return ((supported_xss & mode_mask) &&
>> +		(guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_SHSTK) ||
>> +		guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_IBT)));
>> +}