linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: VMX: Stub out enable_evmcs static key for CONFIG

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]

Date:   Thu, 9 Feb 2023 14:56:30 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: VMX: Stub out enable_evmcs static key for
 CONFIG_HYPERV=n

On 2/9/23 14:13, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> +static __always_inline bool is_evmcs_enabled(void)
>> +{
>> +	return static_branch_unlikely(&enable_evmcs);
>> +}
> I have a suggestion. While 'is_evmcs_enabled' name is certainly not
> worse than 'enable_evmcs', it may still be confusing as it's not clear
> which eVMCS is meant: are we running a guest using eVMCS or using eVMCS
> ourselves? So what if we rename this to a very explicit 'is_kvm_on_hyperv()'
> and hide the implementation details (i.e. 'evmcs') inside?

I prefer keeping eVMCS in the name, but I agree a better name could be 
something like kvm_uses_evmcs()?

Paolo