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:   Fri, 10 Feb 2023 01:13:27 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>, 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 Thu, Feb 09, 2023, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 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,

+1, IIUC KVM can run on Hyper-V without eVMCS being enabled.

> but I agree a better name could be something like kvm_uses_evmcs()?

kvm_is_using_evmcs()?