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]

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 11:23:33 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: John Allen <john.allen@....com>
Cc: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>, 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 Tue, Feb 27, 2024, John Allen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 01:15:09PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> FWIW, the patch that accessed these fields has been omitted in this
> version so if we just want to correct the names of these fields, this
> patch can be pulled in separately from this series.

Nice!  Can you post this as a standalone patch, with a massage changelog to
explain that the vmpl prefix was just a braino?

Thanks!