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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <2c15b9a6b97666805491a06deee4bac497ed88cd.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 08 Nov 2023 12:49:21 +0100
From:   Nina Schoetterl-Glausch <nsg@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...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, 2023-11-08 at 12:23 +0100, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> On Tue,  7 Nov 2023 13:31:16 +0100
> Nina Schoetterl-Glausch <nsg@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > 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
> > @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright IBM Corp. 2023
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include <asm/facility.h>
> > +
> > +unsigned int stfle_size(void)
> > +{
> > +	static unsigned int size;
> > +	u64 dummy;
> > +	unsigned int r;
> 
> reverse Christmas tree please :)

Might be an opportunity to clear that up for me.
AFAIK reverse christmas tree isn't universally enforced in the kernel.
Do we do it in generic s390 code? I know we do for s390 kvm.
Personally I don't quite get the rational, but I don't care much either :)
Heiko?

> with that fixed:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>
> 
> [...]