linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] KVM: cleanup linux/kvm.h

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: <CABgObfa1SmH0HDq5B5OQxpueej=bdivMTkVrO=cXNfOi09HhUw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 14:39:03 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] KVM: cleanup linux/kvm.h

On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 3:43 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > More cleanups of KVM's main header:
> >
> > * remove thoroughly obsolete APIs
> >
> > * move architecture-dependent stuff to uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >
> > * small cleanups to __KVM_HAVE_* symbols
>
> Do you have any thoughts on how/when you're going to apply this?  The kvmh code
> movement is likely going to generate conflicts for any new uAPI, e.g. I know Paul's
> Xen series at least conflicts.

It also conflicts (and was partly motivated by) the SEV API cleanups
that I am going to post soon.

> A topic branch is probably overkill.  Maybe getting this into kvm/next sooner
> than later so that kvm/next can be used as a base will suffice?

I can do both, a topic branch is free. But if you think this is in the
"if it compiles, apply it", then I can take that as Acked-by and apply
it today or tomorrow.

Paolo