[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <35A1304F-2021-4062-A66F-30D8CD2F70FB@nutanix.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 19:36:19 +0000
From: Jon Kohler <jon@...anix.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: restore vmx_vmexit alignment
> On May 31, 2023, at 2:20 PM, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 31, 2023, Jon Kohler wrote:
>> Commit 8bd200d23ec4 ("KVM: VMX: Flatten __vmx_vcpu_run()") changed
>> vmx_vmexit from SYM_FUNC_START to SYM_INNER_LABEL, accidentally
>> removing 16 byte alignment as SYM_FUNC_START uses SYM_A_ALIGN and
>> SYM_INNER_LABEL does not. Josh mentioned [1] this was unintentional.
>
> Anyone know if this is this stable material, or just nice to have?
I’m on the fence, though my vote is nice to have, its been this way for a while,
nothing actively breaks one way or the other, and I don’t think there is a specific
security concern. It’s trivial enough though so it could easily just go the other way.
Will defer to Josh/the crowd if I’m missing something though.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists