| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 15:01:00 +0800
From: Zeng Guang <guang.zeng@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@....com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Hu, Robert" <robert.hu@...el.com>,
"Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>,
Robert Hoo <robert.hu@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] KVM: VMX: Extend BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW macro to
support 64-bit variation
On 8/6/2021 6:32 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2021, Zeng Guang wrote:
>> From: Robert Hoo <robert.hu@...ux.intel.com>
>>
>> The Tertiary VM-Exec Control, different from previous control fields, is 64
>> bit. So extend BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW() by adding a 'bit' parameter, to
>> support both 32 bit and 64 bit fields' auxiliary functions building.
>> Also, define the auxiliary functions for Tertiary control field here, using
>> the new BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW().
>>
>> Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Robert Hoo <robert.hu@...ux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.h | 23 ++++++++++++-----------
>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.h b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.h
>> index 3979a947933a..945c6639ce24 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.h
>> @@ -413,31 +413,32 @@ static inline u8 vmx_get_rvi(void)
>> return vmcs_read16(GUEST_INTR_STATUS) & 0xff;
>> }
>>
>> -#define BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(lname, uname) \
>> -static inline void lname##_controls_set(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u32 val) \
>> +#define BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(lname, uname, bits) \
>> +static inline void lname##_controls_set(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u##bits val) \
> Align the trailing backslashes (with tabs when possible). It's a lot of unfortunate
> churn, but it really does make the code easier to read. An alternative is to split
> "static inline" to a separate line.
>
>> { \
>> if (vmx->loaded_vmcs->controls_shadow.lname != val) { \
>> - vmcs_write32(uname, val); \
>> + vmcs_write##bits(uname, val); \
>> vmx->loaded_vmcs->controls_shadow.lname = val; \
>> } \
>> } \
>> -static inline u32 lname##_controls_get(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx) \
>> +static inline u##bits lname##_controls_get(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx) \
>> { \
>> return vmx->loaded_vmcs->controls_shadow.lname; \
>> } \
>> -static inline void lname##_controls_setbit(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u32 val) \
>> +static inline void lname##_controls_setbit(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u##bits val) \
>> { \
>> lname##_controls_set(vmx, lname##_controls_get(vmx) | val); \
>> } \
>> -static inline void lname##_controls_clearbit(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u32 val) \
>> +static inline void lname##_controls_clearbit(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u##bits val) \
>> { \
>> lname##_controls_set(vmx, lname##_controls_get(vmx) & ~val); \
>> }
>> -BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(vm_entry, VM_ENTRY_CONTROLS)
>> -BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(vm_exit, VM_EXIT_CONTROLS)
>> -BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(pin, PIN_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL)
>> -BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(exec, CPU_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL)
>> -BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(secondary_exec, SECONDARY_VM_EXEC_CONTROL)
>> +BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(vm_entry, VM_ENTRY_CONTROLS, 32)
>> +BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(vm_exit, VM_EXIT_CONTROLS, 32)
>> +BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(pin, PIN_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL, 32)
>> +BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(exec, CPU_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL, 32)
>> +BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(secondary_exec, SECONDARY_VM_EXEC_CONTROL, 32)
>> +BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(tertiary_exec, TERTIARY_VM_EXEC_CONTROL, 64)
> This fails to compile because all the TERTIARY collateral is in a later patch.
Alternative to derive relative TERTIARY collateral and prepare them in
this patch. Ok for that ?
>
> I think I'd also prefer hiding the 32/64 param via more macros, e.g.
>
> #define __BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(lname, uname, bits) \
> static inline void lname##_controls_set(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u##bits val) \
> { \
> if (vmx->loaded_vmcs->controls_shadow.lname != val) { \
> vmcs_write##bits(uname, val); \
> vmx->loaded_vmcs->controls_shadow.lname = val; \
> } \
> } \
> static inline u##bits lname##_controls_get(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx) \
> { \
> return vmx->loaded_vmcs->controls_shadow.lname; \
> } \
> static inline void lname##_controls_setbit(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u##bits val) \
> { \
> lname##_controls_set(vmx, lname##_controls_get(vmx) | val); \
> } \
> static inline void lname##_controls_clearbit(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u##bits val) \
> { \
> lname##_controls_set(vmx, lname##_controls_get(vmx) & ~val); \
> }
> #define BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(lname, uname) __BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(lname, uname, 32)
> #define BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW64(lname, uname) __BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(lname, uname, 64)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists