linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] kvm: add suspend pm-notifier

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]

Date:   Sat, 5 Jun 2021 09:58:10 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] kvm: add suspend pm-notifier

On (21/06/04 11:03), Marc Zyngier wrote:
[..]
> > Well on the other hand PM-callbacks are harmless on those archs, they
> > won't overload the __weak function.
> 
> I don't care much for the callbacks. But struct kvm is bloated enough,
> and I'd be happy not to have this structure embedded in it if I can
> avoid it.

Got it.

> > > How about passing the state to the notifier callback? I'd expect it to
> > > be useful to do something on resume too.
> > 
> > For different states we can have different kvm_arch functions instead.
> > kvm_arch_pm_notifier() can be renamed to kvm_arch_suspend_notifier(),
> > so that we don't need to have `switch (state)` in every arch-code. Then
> > for resume/post resume states we can have kvm_arch_resume_notifier()
> > arch functions.
> 
> I'd rather we keep an arch API that is similar to the one the rest of
> the kernel has, instead of a flurry of small helpers that need to grow
> each time someone adds a new PM state. A switch() in the arch-specific
> implementation is absolutely fine.

OK.