linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 2/8] KVM: VMX: Extend BUILD_CONTROLS

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Thu, 31 Mar 2022 22:27:06 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Zeng Guang <guang.zeng@...el.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,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tony Luck <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>,
        Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Robert Hu <robert.hu@...el.com>,
        Gao Chao <chao.gao@...el.com>,
        Robert Hoo <robert.hu@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/8] KVM: VMX: Extend BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW macro to
 support 64-bit variation

On Fri, Mar 04, 2022, Zeng Guang wrote:
> +#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 loaded_vmcs *vmcs)\
> +{									\
> +	return vmcs->controls_shadow.lname;				\
> +}									\
> +static inline u##bits lname##_controls_get(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)	\
> +{									\
> +	return __##lname##_controls_get(vmx->loaded_vmcs);		\
> +}									\
> +static inline								\

Drop the newline, there's no need to split this across two lines.  Aligning the
backslashes will mean they all poke past the 80 char soft limit, but that's totally
ok.  The whole point of the line limit is to improve readability, and a trivial
runover is much less painful than a split function declaration.  As a bonus, all
the backslashes are aligned, have leading whitespace, and still land on a tab stop :-)

#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 loaded_vmcs *vmcs)	\
{										\
	return vmcs->controls_shadow.lname;					\
}										\
static inline u##bits lname##_controls_get(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)		\
{										\
	return __##lname##_controls_get(vmx->loaded_vmcs);			\
}										\
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);		\
}

With that fixed,

Reviewed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>

> +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);	\
>  }
> -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)
>  
>  /*
>   * VMX_REGS_LAZY_LOAD_SET - The set of registers that will be updated in the
> -- 
> 2.27.0
>