linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: nVMX: Remove outdated comments in nested_vmx_setup_ctls

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: <Y5yhs34E169ol+qE@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Dec 2022 16:49:55 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     pbonzini@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: nVMX: Remove outdated comments in
 nested_vmx_setup_ctls_msrs().

On Fri, Dec 16, 2022, Yu Zhang wrote:
> > 
> > Eh, just drop the comment.  Pretty obvious this is for secondary execution controls.
> Thanks Sean. Well, I agree it is obvious.
> 
> This line was kept because there are comments for other groups of
> control fields(e.g., exit/entry/pin-based/cpu-based controls etc.)
> in nested_vmx_setup_ctls_msrs(). If we do not keep the one for secondary
> cpu-based controls, we may just delete other comments as well. But
> is that really necessary? 

Adding a patch to delete the various one-line comments is probably unnecessary
churn.  The comments are kinda sorta helpful, but only because the function is a
giant and thus a bit hard to follow.  A better solution than comments would be to
add helpers for each collection ("secondary_ctls" is a bit of a lie because it
handle VPID, EPT, VMFUNC, etc..., but whatever), e.g.

	nested_vmx_setup_pinbased_ctls(msrs);
	nested_vmx_setup_exit_ctls(msrs);
	nested_vmx_setup_entry_ctls(msrs);
	nested_vmx_setup_cpubased_ctls(msrs);
	nested_vmx_setup_secondary_ctls(msrs);
	nested_vmx_setup_misc_data(msrs);