linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] KVM: s390: vsie: Fix length of facility list shadowed

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 8 Nov 2023 12:06:24 +0100
From:   Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Nina Schoetterl-Glausch <nsg@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] KVM: s390: vsie: Fix length of facility list
 shadowed

On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 11:30:09AM +0100, Nina Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-11-07 at 18:11 +0100, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> > On Tue,  7 Nov 2023 13:31:16 +0100
> > Nina Schoetterl-Glausch <nsg@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > -obj-y	+= smp.o text_amode31.o stacktrace.o abs_lowcore.o
> > > +obj-y	+= smp.o text_amode31.o stacktrace.o abs_lowcore.o facility.o
> > >  
> > >  extra-y				+= vmlinux.lds
> > >  
> > > diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/facility.c b/arch/s390/kernel/facility.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..5e80a4f65363
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/facility.c
> > 
> > I wonder if this is the right place for this?
> 
> I've wondered the same :D
> > 
> > This function seems to be used only for vsie, maybe you can just move
> > it to vsie.c? or do you think it will be used elsewhere too?
> 
> It's a general STFLE function and if I put it into vsie.c I'm not sure
> that, if the same functionality was required somewhere else, it would be
> found and moved to a common location.
> 
> I was also somewhat resistant to calling a double underscore function from
> vsie.c. Of course I could implement it with my own inline asm...
> 
> The way I did it seemed nicest, but if someone else has a strong opinion
> I'll defer to that.

I think it is ok to have new file for just this. It is better than what
we've done too often in the past: dump new functionality to some more or
less random file instead. The usual victim would have been setup.c.

So I prefer a new file, even if we end up with only one function there.