linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v5 047/104] KVM: x86/mmu: add a private pointer to struct kvm_mmu

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]

Message-ID: <4515f55c1717e963989e3d5e8640636d5ed2f25f.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 08 Apr 2022 11:24:00 +1200
From:   Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, isaku.yamahata@...el.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     isaku.yamahata@...il.com, Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        erdemaktas@...gle.com, Connor Kuehl <ckuehl@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 047/104] KVM: x86/mmu: add a private pointer to
 struct kvm_mmu_page

On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 01:03 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 4/8/22 00:53, Kai Huang wrote:
> > > 
> > Do you mean below reply?
> > 
> > "I think use of kvm_gfn_stolen_mask() should be minimized anyway.  I
> > would rename it to to kvm_{gfn,gpa}_private_mask and not return bool."
> > 
> > I also mean we should not use kvm_gfn_stolen_mask().  I don't have opinion on
> > the new name.  Perhaps kvm_is_protected_vm() is my preference though.
> 
> But this is one of the case where it would survive, even with the 
> changed name.
> 
> Paolo
> 

Perhaps I confused you (sorry about that).  Yes we do need the check here.  I
just dislike the function name.

-- 
Thanks,
-Kai