linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/mm/cpa: Warn if set_memory

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: <06f701e6-f74e-1dbd-d021-07a78523900c@amd.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:37:29 -0500
From:   Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To:     "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        "Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Cui, Dexuan" <decui@...rosoft.com>,
        "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
        "mikelley@...rosoft.com" <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm/cpa: Warn if set_memory_XXcrypted() fails

On 10/25/23 21:04, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-10-25 at 11:10 -0700, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
>> Looks good to me.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
>> <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
>>
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>>
>> IMO, you can avoid "out" label with (!ret && !x86_platform....)
>> check. But it is upto
>> you.
> 
> Hmm, yes it could. I think it's a little easier to read as is, but just
> my opinion as well.

It might be even easier to read to just have:

	if (ret)
		return ret;

	if (!x86_platform...)
		goto vmm_fail

	return 0;

since jumping to the out: label just does a return anyway.

Thanks,
Tom