linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] KVM: x86: Introduce KVM_REQ_RING_SOFT

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 19 Sep 2022 12:17:02 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        catalin.marinas@....com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        bgardon@...gle.com, shuah@...nel.org, corbet@....net,
        drjones@...hat.com, will@...nel.org, zhenyzha@...hat.com,
        dmatlack@...gle.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        oliver.upton@...ux.dev, shan.gavin@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] KVM: x86: Introduce KVM_REQ_RING_SOFT_FULL

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 09:58:10AM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
> I think Marc's explanation makes sense. It won't make difference in terms
> of performance. We need to explicitly handle barrier when kvm_test_request()
> is used. So I prefer to keep the code if Peter agrees.

No strong opinion here. I keep thinking clear+set look awkward even if it's
unlikely path to trigger (ring should be recycled when reaching here for
any sane user app), but if it's already 2:1 then please go ahead. :)

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu