[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200825110446.GC12107@zn.tnic>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 13:04:46 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>, hpa@...or.com,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Cfir Cohen <cfir@...gle.com>,
Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Mike Stunes <mstunes@...are.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Martin Radev <martin.b.radev@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 02/76] KVM: SVM: Add GHCB definitions
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:22:24AM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> I don't think so, if I look at the history of these checks their whole
> purpose seems to be to alert the developer/maintainer when their size
> changes and that they might not fit on the stack anymore. But that is
> taken care of in patch 1.
Why? What's wrong with:
BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct vmcb_save_area) != VMCB_SAVE_AREA_SIZE);
BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct vmcb_control_area) != VMCB_CONTROL_AREA_SIZE);
BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct ghcb) != PAGE_SIZE);
?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists