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: <Y+GKo0tI2NeKiNDR@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Feb 2023 15:17:55 -0800
From:   David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>
To:     Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>
Cc:     seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, bgardon@...gle.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v2 1/5] KVM: x86/mmu: Make separate function to check for
 SPTEs atomic write conditions

The shortlog is difficult to understand.

 - I think it's more common to use "Add" or "Introduce" when talking
   about adding a new function, rather than "Make".

 - "atomic write conditions" does not mirror the code naming, which
   checks for "volatile bits". e.g. The function is not called
   kvm_tdp_mmu_spte_need_atomic_write().

"volatile bits" is, at this point, pretty standard terminology in KVM
MMU to refer to "bits that can change outside the MMU lock". So I would
suggest leaning on that here.

So something like this:

  KVM: x86/mmu: Add helper function to check if an SPTE has volatile bits

On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 11:28:18AM -0800, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> Move condition checks in kvm_tdp_mmu_write_spte() for writing spte
> atomically in a separate function.

s/in a separate function/to a separate function/

> 
> New function will be used inc

nit: Use complete sentences. e.g. "This new function ..." or just state
the name directly, e.g. "kvm_tdp_mmu_spte_has_volatile_bits() will be
used in ...".

> future commits to clear bits in SPTE.

s/to clear bits in SPTE/to optimize clearing bits in SPTEs/

> 
> Signed-off-by: Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>

Code looks fine, just grammar/writing nits above.

Reviewed-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ