linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/8] KVM: x86: interrupt based APF page-ready event delivery

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: <20200513140304.GC173965@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 May 2020 10:03:04 -0400
From:   Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] KVM: x86: interrupt based APF page-ready event
 delivery

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 09:53:50AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:

[..]
> > > And this notion of same structure being shared across multiple events
> > > at the same time is just going to create more confusion, IMHO. If we
> > > can decouple it by serializing it, that definitely feels simpler to
> > > understand.
> > 
> > What if we just add sub-structures to the structure, e.g. 
> > 
> > struct kvm_vcpu_pv_apf_data {
> >         struct {
> >             __u32 apf_flag;
> >         } legacy_apf_data;
> >         struct {
> >             __u32 token;
> >         } apf_interrupt_data;
> >         ....
> >         __u8 pad[56];                                                                                  |
> >         __u32 enabled;                                                                                 |
> > };    
> > 
> > would it make it more obvious?

On a second thought, given we are not planning to use
this structure for synchrous events anymore, I think defining
struct might be overkill. May be a simple comment will do.

struct kvm_vcpu_pv_apf_data {
	/* Used by page fault based page not present notifications. Soon
	 * it will be legacy
	 */
	__u32 apf_flag;
	/* Used for interrupt based page ready notifications */
	__u32 token;
	...
	...
}

Thanks
Vivek