linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/16] KVM: x86: Remove separate "bit" defines for page fault error code masks

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: <ZeCiAugERaMYq2Yw@google.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 07:25:54 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@...cle.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>, Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, 
	Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>, Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>, Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>, 
	David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/16] KVM: x86: Remove separate "bit" defines for page
 fault error code masks

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024, Dongli Zhang wrote:
> I remember I read somewhere suggesting not to change the headers in selftest.

The "suggestion" is to not update the headers that perf tooling copies verbatim
from the kernel, e.g. tools/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h.  The duplicates in tools/
aren't used by KVM selftests, it's purely perf that needs identical copies from
the kernel tree, so I strongly prefer to leave it to the perf folks to deal with
synchronizing the headers as needed.

> Just double-check if there is requirement to edit
> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/processor.h.

This header is a KVM selftests specific header that is independent from the kernel
headers.  It does have _some_ copy+paste, mostly for architecturally defined
bits and bobs, but it's not a straight copy of any kernel header.

That said, yes, I think we should also clean up x86_64/processor.h.  That can be
done in a one-off standalone patch though.