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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Sat, 2 Apr 2022 20:47:20 +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 v7 2/8] KVM: VMX: Extend BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW macro to
 support 64-bit variation


On 4/1/2022 6:27 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> 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>

OK. I'll revise it.