linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 15/15] KVM: X86: Always set gpte_is_8

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 19 Nov 2021 18:30:40 +0800
From:   Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/15] KVM: X86: Always set gpte_is_8_bytes when direct
 map



On 2021/11/18 23:01, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 11/18/21 15:34, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2021/11/18 19:12, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 11/18/21 12:08, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>>>> From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>
>>>>
>>>> When direct map, gpte_is_8_bytes has no meaning, but it is true for all
>>>> other cases except direct map when nonpaping.
>>>>
>>>> Setting gpte_is_8_bytes to true when nonpaping can ensure that
>>>> !gpte_is_8_bytes means 32-bit gptes for shadow paging.
>>>
>>> Then the right thing to do would be to rename it to has_4_byte_gptes and invert the direction.  But as things stand, 
>>> it's a bit more confusing to make gpte_is_8_bytes=1 if there are no guest PTEs at all.
>>>
>>
>> I will make the last 3 patches be a separated patchset and will do the rename.
> 
> Patches 13 and 14 are fine actually.
> 

Hello

Since 13, and 14 is queued, could you also queue this one and I will do the rename
separately in the next patchset.  I found that the intent of this patch is hidden
in the lengthened squashed patch (of this patch and the renaming patch).

Thanks
Lai