linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Rename vmx_get_max_tdp_level to vmx_get_max_ept

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:   Tue, 15 Aug 2023 07:56:59 +0000
From:   "Gao,Shiyuan" <gaoshiyuan@...du.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Rename vmx_get_max_tdp_level to
 vmx_get_max_ept_level

> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023, Shiyuan Gao wrote:
> > In vmx, ept_level looks better than tdp level and is consistent with
> > svm get_npt_level().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shiyuan Gao <gaoshiyuan@...du.com <mailto:gaoshiyuan@...du.com>>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > index df461f387e20..f0cfd1f10a06 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > @@ -3350,7 +3350,7 @@ void vmx_set_cr0(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long cr0)
> > vmx->emulation_required = vmx_emulation_required(vcpu);
> > }
> >
> > -static int vmx_get_max_tdp_level(void)
> > +static int vmx_get_max_ept_level(void)
> > {
> > if (cpu_has_vmx_ept_5levels())
> > return 5;
> > @@ -8526,7 +8526,7 @@ static __init int hardware_setup(void)
> > */
> > vmx_setup_me_spte_mask();
> >
> > - kvm_configure_mmu(enable_ept, 0, vmx_get_max_tdp_level(),
> > + kvm_configure_mmu(enable_ept, 0, vmx_get_max_ept_level(),
> > ept_caps_to_lpage_level(vmx_capability.ept));
>
>
> Anyone else have an opinion on this? I'm leaning toward applying it, but a small
> part of me also kinda likes the "tdp" name (though every time I look at this patch
> that part of me gets even smaller...).
>

Remind, please look at this patch again :)