linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 10/14] KVM: s390: Refactor absolute vm mem

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

Date:   Fri, 3 Feb 2023 15:48:55 +0100
From:   Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 10/14] KVM: s390: Refactor absolute vm mem_op function

On 1/25/23 22:26, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> Remove code duplication with regards to the CHECK_ONLY flag.
> Decrease the number of indents.
> No functional change indented.
> 
> Suggested-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
> 
> 
> Cosmetic only, can be dropped.
> 
> 
>   arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++------------------------
>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> index 588cf70dc81e..cfd09cb43ef6 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> @@ -2794,6 +2794,7 @@ static void *mem_op_alloc_buf(struct kvm_s390_mem_op *mop)
>   static int kvm_s390_vm_mem_op_abs(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_s390_mem_op *mop)
>   {
>   	void __user *uaddr = (void __user *)mop->buf;
> +	enum gacc_mode acc_mode;
>   	void *tmpbuf = NULL;
>   	int r, srcu_idx;
>   
> @@ -2813,33 +2814,23 @@ static int kvm_s390_vm_mem_op_abs(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_s390_mem_op *mop)
>   		goto out_unlock;
>   	}
>   
> -	switch (mop->op) {
> -	case KVM_S390_MEMOP_ABSOLUTE_READ: {
> -		if (mop->flags & KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY) {
> -			r = check_gpa_range(kvm, mop->gaddr, mop->size, GACC_FETCH, mop->key);
> -		} else {
> -			r = access_guest_abs_with_key(kvm, mop->gaddr, tmpbuf,
> -						      mop->size, GACC_FETCH, mop->key);
> -			if (r == 0) {
> -				if (copy_to_user(uaddr, tmpbuf, mop->size))
> -					r = -EFAULT;
> -			}
> -		}
> -		break;
> -	}
> -	case KVM_S390_MEMOP_ABSOLUTE_WRITE: {
> -		if (mop->flags & KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY) {
> -			r = check_gpa_range(kvm, mop->gaddr, mop->size, GACC_STORE, mop->key);
> -		} else {
> -			if (copy_from_user(tmpbuf, uaddr, mop->size)) {
> -				r = -EFAULT;
> -				break;
> -			}
> -			r = access_guest_abs_with_key(kvm, mop->gaddr, tmpbuf,
> -						      mop->size, GACC_STORE, mop->key);
> +	acc_mode = mop->op == KVM_S390_MEMOP_ABSOLUTE_READ ? GACC_FETCH : GACC_STORE;

Would the line be too long if that variable would be initialized where 
it's defined?

> +	if (mop->flags & KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY) {
> +		r = check_gpa_range(kvm, mop->gaddr, mop->size, acc_mode, mop->key);

We should early return i.e. goto out_unlock.

IMHO else if, else patterns should either be switches (testing the same 
variable) or kept as short as possible / be avoided.

> +	} else if (acc_mode == GACC_FETCH) {
> +		r = access_guest_abs_with_key(kvm, mop->gaddr, tmpbuf,
> +					      mop->size, GACC_FETCH, mop->key);

I'd guess it's personal taste whether you use GACC_FETCH or access_mode 
but if you don't use it here then we can remove the variable all 
together, no?

> +		if (r)
> +			goto out_unlock;
> +		if (copy_to_user(uaddr, tmpbuf, mop->size))
> +			r = -EFAULT;
> +	} else {
> +		if (copy_from_user(tmpbuf, uaddr, mop->size)) {
> +			r = -EFAULT;
> +			goto out_unlock;
>   		}
> -		break;
> -	}
> +		r = access_guest_abs_with_key(kvm, mop->gaddr, tmpbuf,
> +					      mop->size, GACC_STORE, mop->key);
>   	}
>   
>   out_unlock: