linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 04/12] KVM: Allow range-based TLB invalidation from common code

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: <CAJHc60xsNtnOpc8=XV_102A2sEESk=Scfhj7ktjNepQp2exw_A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:39:58 -0700
From:   Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
        Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@...gle.com>,
        Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@...gle.com>,
        Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@...gle.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>,
        Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 04/12] KVM: Allow range-based TLB invalidation from
 common code

On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 2:55 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > index ec169f5c7dce..eb88d25f9896 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > @@ -278,16 +278,15 @@ static inline bool kvm_available_flush_remote_tlbs_range(void)
> >       return kvm_x86_ops.flush_remote_tlbs_range;
> >  }
> >
> > -void kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_range(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t start_gfn,
> > -                              gfn_t nr_pages)
> > +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_range(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t start_gfn, u64 pages)
>
> Please keep "nr_pages", I have a very strong preference for that over just "pages"
> as the "nr_" makes it super obvious that it's a single number, as opposed to an
> array of pages or something.
>
Sure, I'll revert back to 'nr_pages'.

- Raghavendra
> And it doesn't truly matter, but IMO the gfn_t type is more appropriate since
> the gfn and the number of pages need to have the same type.