linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 01/15] KVM: x86: Add a framework for enabling KVM-governed x86 features

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: <2a49926ccd07b14251e8f004089e3185eb6b4de6.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Aug 2023 22:46:08 +0000
From:   "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To:     "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC:     "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "Zeng, Guang" <guang.zeng@...el.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "vkuznets@...hat.com" <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        "Yao, Yuan" <yuan.yao@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/15] KVM: x86: Add a framework for enabling
 KVM-governed x86 features

On Wed, 2023-08-16 at 07:20 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023, Kai Huang wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/governed_features.h b/arch/x86/kvm/governed_features.h
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..40ce8e6608cd
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/governed_features.h
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
> > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > > +#if !defined(KVM_GOVERNED_FEATURE) || defined(KVM_GOVERNED_X86_FEATURE)
> > > +BUILD_BUG()
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > > +#define KVM_GOVERNED_X86_FEATURE(x) KVM_GOVERNED_FEATURE(X86_FEATURE_##x)
> > > +
> > > +#undef KVM_GOVERNED_X86_FEATURE
> > > +#undef KVM_GOVERNED_FEATURE
> > 
> > Nit:
> > 
> > Do you want to move the very last
> > 
> > 	#undef KVM_GOVERNED_FEATURE
> > 
> > out of "governed_features.h", but to the place(s) where the macro is defined?
> > 
> > Yes there will be multiple:
> > 
> > 	#define KVM_GOVERNED_FEATURE(x)	...
> > 	#include "governed_features.h"
> > 	#undef KVM_GOVERNED_FEATURE
> > 
> > But this looks clearer to me.
> 
> I agree the symmetry looks better, but doing the #undef in governed_features.h
> is much more robust.  E.g. having the #undef in the header makes it all but impossible
> to have a bug where we forget to #undef KVM_GOVERNED_FEATURE.  Or worse, have two
> bugs where we forget to #undef and then also forget to #define in a later include
> and consume the stale #define.

Fair enough.

> 
> And I also want to follow the pattern used by kvm-x86-ops.h.

Right.  I forgot to check this.

Reviewed-by: Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>