linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 5/9] KVM: nSVM: introduce nested_svm_load_cr3()/nested_npt

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200715043609.GF14404@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Jul 2020 21:36:11 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/9] KVM: nSVM: introduce
 nested_svm_load_cr3()/nested_npt_enabled()

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 01:26:24PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> writes:
> > IMO the addition of nested_npt_enabled() should be a separate patch, and
> > the additoin of @nested_npt should be in patch 7.
> >
> > Hypothetically speaking, if nested_npt_enabled() is inaccurate at the call
> > site in nested_prepare_vmcb_save(), then this patch is technically wrong
> > even though it doesn't introduce a bug.  Given that the call site of
> > nested_svm_load_cr3() is moved in patch 7, I don't see any value in adding
> > the placeholder parameter early.
> >
> 
> I see and I mostly agree, I put it here to avoid the unneeded churn and
> make it easier to review the whole thing: this patch is technically a
> nop so it can be reviewed in "doesn't change anything" mode and patches
> which actually change things are smaller.
> 
> Paolo already said 'queued' here and your comments can't be addressed in
> a follow-up patch but I can certainly do v5 if needed.

Eh, not necessary, I didn't see that the series was in kvm/queue until after
I hit send.  Thanks!