linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Fix function address when kvm_x86

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]

Message-ID: <YhUAXKkGjO/Yjz8G@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Feb 2022 15:25:16 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Fix function address when kvm_x86_ops.func is
 NULL

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022, Like Xu wrote:
> On 22/2/2022 4:33 pm, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 2/22/22 07:25, Like Xu wrote:
> > > From: Like Xu <likexu@...cent.com>
> > > 
> > > Fix the function address for __static_call_return0() which is used by
> > > static_call_update() when a func in struct kvm_x86_ops is NULL.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 5be2226f417d ("KVM: x86: allow defining return-0 static calls")
> > > Signed-off-by: Like Xu <likexu@...cent.com>
> > 
> > Sorry for the stupid question, but what breaks?
> 
> Although they are numerically the same, I suppose we should use the
> & operator here, as in the other cases where __static_call_return0 is used.

Meh, IMO all the other instances are weird for adding the "&".