linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/9] KVM: SVM: Rename vmplX_ssp -> plX

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: <Zd4mf5Z1N4dFjFU7@google.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 10:14:23 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: John Allen <john.allen@....com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, weijiang.yang@...el.com, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, 
	thomas.lendacky@....com, bp@...en8.de, pbonzini@...hat.com, 
	mlevitsk@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/9] KVM: SVM: Rename vmplX_ssp -> plX_ssp

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024, John Allen wrote:
> Rename SEV-ES save area SSP fields to be consistent with the APM.
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Allen <john.allen@....com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h
> index 87a7b917d30e..728c98175b9c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h
> @@ -358,10 +358,10 @@ struct sev_es_save_area {
>  	struct vmcb_seg ldtr;
>  	struct vmcb_seg idtr;
>  	struct vmcb_seg tr;
> -	u64 vmpl0_ssp;
> -	u64 vmpl1_ssp;
> -	u64 vmpl2_ssp;
> -	u64 vmpl3_ssp;
> +	u64 pl0_ssp;
> +	u64 pl1_ssp;
> +	u64 pl2_ssp;
> +	u64 pl3_ssp;

Are these CPL fields, or VMPL fields?  Presumably it's the former since this is
a single save area.  If so, the changelog should call that out, i.e. make it clear
that the current names are outright bugs.  If these somehow really are VMPL fields,
I would prefer to diverge from the APM, because pl[0..3] is way to ambiguous in
that case.

It's borderline if they're CPL fields, but Intel calls them PL[0..3]_SSP, so I'm
much less inclined to diverge from two other things in that case.