linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Use a stable condition around all VT-d PI paths

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:   Tue, 16 Nov 2021 18:57:49 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, jgross@...e.com,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Use a stable condition around all VT-d PI paths

On 11/16/21 18:42, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> +	return kvm_arch_has_assigned_device(kvm) &&
>> +		irq_remapping_cap(IRQ_POSTING_CAP) &&
>> +		irqchip_in_kernel(kvm) && enable_apicv;
> Bad indentation/alignment.

What is even the right indentation?  I'd just wrap everything in 
parentheses but then check patch complains "return is not a function" 
(NSS), so I went for two tabs and called it a day.

> Not that it's likely to matter, but would it make sense to invert the checks so
> that they're short-circuited on the faster KVM checks?  E.g. fastest to slowest:
> 
> 	return irqchip_in_kernel(kvm) && enable_apic &&
> 	       kvm_arch_has_assigned_device(kvm) &&
> 	       irq_remapping_cap(IRQ_POSTING_CAP);

Sure, why not.

Paolo