linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: User mutex guards to eliminate __kvm_x86_vendor

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: <b028a431-92e0-4440-adf9-6b855edb88c0@suse.com>
Date:   Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:57:23 +0200
From:   Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     pbonzini@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: User mutex guards to eliminate
 __kvm_x86_vendor_init()



On 30.10.23 г. 18:07 ч., Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2023, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> Current separation between (__){0,1}kvm_x86_vendor_init() is 
>> superfluos as
> 
> superfluous
> 
> But this intro is actively misleading.  The double-underscore variant 
> most definitely
> isn't superfluous, e.g. it eliminates the need for gotos reduces the 
> probability
> of incorrect error codes, bugs in the error handling, etc.  It _becomes_ 
> superflous
> after switching to guard(mutex).
> 
> IMO, this is one of the instances where the "problem, then solution" 
> appoach is
> counter-productive.  If there are no objections, I'll massage the change 
> log to
> the below when applying (for 6.8, in a few weeks).
> 
>   Use the recently introduced guard(mutex) infrastructure acquire and
>   automatically release vendor_module_lock when the guard goes out of 
> scope.
>   Drop the inner __kvm_x86_vendor_init(), its sole purpose was to simplify
>   releasing vendor_module_lock in error paths.
> 
>   No functional change intended.
> 
>> the the underscore version doesn't have any other callers.
>>


Has this fallen through the cracks as I don't see it in 6.7?