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: <1f95281e-f8a9-4ff2-8959-162a192e48bd@amd.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 13:15:09 -0600
From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, John Allen <john.allen@....com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, weijiang.yang@...el.com, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.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 2/27/24 12:14, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> 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.

Definitely not VMPL fields...  I guess I had VMPL levels on my mind when I 
was typing those names.

Thanks,
Tom

> 
> 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.