linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 14/39] KVM: nSVM: Keep track of Hyper-V hv_vm_id/hv_vp

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: <Yyy9CH9CgCsZ3m3V@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Sep 2022 19:52:40 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
        Siddharth Chandrasekaran <sidcha@...zon.de>,
        Yuan Yao <yuan.yao@...ux.intel.com>,
        Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>,
        linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 14/39] KVM: nSVM: Keep track of Hyper-V
 hv_vm_id/hv_vp_id

On Thu, Sep 22, 2022, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> writes:
> > I'm definitely not dead set against having hyperv.{ch}, but unless there's a high
> > probability of SVM+Hyper-V getting to eVMCS levels of enlightenment, my vote is
> > to put these helpers in svm/nested.c and move then if/when we do end up accumulating
> > more SVM+Hyper-V code.
> 
> Well, there's more on the TODO list :-) There are even nSVM-only
> features like "enlightened TLB" (to split ASID invalidations into two
> stages) so I don't want to pollute 'nested.c'. In fact, I was thinking
> about renaming vmx/evmcs.{ch} into vmx/hyperv.{ch} as we're doing more
> than eVMCS there already. Also, having separate files help with the
> newly introduces 'KVM X86 HYPER-V (KVM/hyper-v)' MAINTAINERS entry.

Ya, there is that.

> Does this sound like a good enough justification for keeping hyperv.{ch}?

Your call, I'm totally ok either way.  If we do add svm/hyperv.{ch}, my vote is
to also rename vmx/evmcs.{ch} as you suggested.  I like symmetry :-)