linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 05/21] KVM: pfncache: remove KVM_GUEST_USES

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]

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:00:17 +0000
From: Paul Durrant <xadimgnik@...il.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>, Alexander Gordeev
 <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>, Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
 David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
 kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 05/21] KVM: pfncache: remove KVM_GUEST_USES_PFN usage

On 19/02/2024 21:43, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024, Paul Durrant wrote:
>> From: Paul Durrant <pdurrant@...zon.com>
>>
>> As noted in [1] the KVM_GUEST_USES_PFN usage flag is never set by any
>> callers of kvm_gpc_init(), which also makes the 'vcpu' argument redundant.
> 
> The changelog should explicitly call out that not only is KVM_GUEST_USES_PFN
> unused, it's incomplete/broken (which is also partly why it's unused).  Without
> that information, removing the support looks like a somewhat arbitrary decision,
> versus a deliberate change to make it easier to support the gpc code.

Ok. I'll add some words to that effect.