linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] KVM: VMX: Combine "check" and "get" APIs for passthrough MSR lookups

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: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 19:14:48 -0800
From: Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@...cle.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] KVM: VMX: Combine "check" and "get" APIs for
 passthrough MSR lookups



On 2/23/24 12:21, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Combine possible_passthrough_msr_slot() and is_valid_passthrough_msr()
> into a single function, vmx_get_passthrough_msr_slot(), and have the
> combined helper return the slot on success, using a negative value to
> indicate "failure".
> 
> Combining the operations avoids iterating over the array of passthrough
> MSRs twice for relevant MSRs.
> 
> Suggested-by: Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@...cle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++-------------------------
>  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> index 014cf47dc66b..969fd3aa0da3 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> @@ -658,25 +658,14 @@ static inline bool cpu_need_virtualize_apic_accesses(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  	return flexpriority_enabled && lapic_in_kernel(vcpu);
>  }
>  
> -static int possible_passthrough_msr_slot(u32 msr)
> +static int vmx_get_passthrough_msr_slot(u32 msr)
>  {
> -	u32 i;
> -
> -	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(vmx_possible_passthrough_msrs); i++)
> -		if (vmx_possible_passthrough_msrs[i] == msr)
> -			return i;
> -
> -	return -ENOENT;
> -}
> -
> -static bool is_valid_passthrough_msr(u32 msr)
> -{
> -	bool r;
> +	int i;
>  
>  	switch (msr) {
>  	case 0x800 ... 0x8ff:
>  		/* x2APIC MSRs. These are handled in vmx_update_msr_bitmap_x2apic() */
> -		return true;
> +		return -ENOENT;
>  	case MSR_IA32_RTIT_STATUS:
>  	case MSR_IA32_RTIT_OUTPUT_BASE:
>  	case MSR_IA32_RTIT_OUTPUT_MASK:
> @@ -691,14 +680,16 @@ static bool is_valid_passthrough_msr(u32 msr)
>  	case MSR_LBR_CORE_FROM ... MSR_LBR_CORE_FROM + 8:
>  	case MSR_LBR_CORE_TO ... MSR_LBR_CORE_TO + 8:
>  		/* LBR MSRs. These are handled in vmx_update_intercept_for_lbr_msrs() */
> -		return true;
> +		return -ENOENT;
>  	}
>  
> -	r = possible_passthrough_msr_slot(msr) != -ENOENT;
> -
> -	WARN(!r, "Invalid MSR %x, please adapt vmx_possible_passthrough_msrs[]", msr);
> +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(vmx_possible_passthrough_msrs); i++) {
> +		if (vmx_possible_passthrough_msrs[i] == msr)
> +			return i;
> +	}
>  
> -	return r;
> +	WARN(1, "Invalid MSR %x, please adapt vmx_possible_passthrough_msrs[]", msr);

Reviewed-by: Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@...cle.com>

Not sure which is better:

WARN(1 ...  , or WARN(true ...

Thank you very much!

Dongli Zhang