linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86/virt/tdx: Move TDMR metadata fields map table to local variable

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, 3 May 2024 12:18:32 +1200
From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org"
	<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>, "seanjc@...gle.com"
	<seanjc@...gle.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "x86@...nel.org"
	<x86@...nel.org>, "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "pbonzini@...hat.com"
	<pbonzini@...hat.com>, "jgross@...e.com" <jgross@...e.com>, "Yamahata, Isaku"
	<isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86/virt/tdx: Move TDMR metadata fields map table to
 local variable



On 3/05/2024 12:09 pm, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Sat, 2024-03-02 at 00:20 +1300, Kai Huang wrote:
>> The kernel reads all TDMR related global metadata fields based on a
>> table which maps the metadata fields to the corresponding members of
>> 'struct tdx_tdmr_sysinfo'.
>>
>> Currently this table is a static variable.  But this table is only used
>> by the function which reads these metadata fields and becomes useless
>> after reading is done.
>>
>> Change the table to function local variable.  This also saves the
>> storage of the table from the kernel image.
> 
> It seems like a reasonable change, but I don't see how it helps the purpose of
> this series. It seems more like generic cleanup. Can you explain?

It doesn't help KVM from exporting API's perspective.

I just uses this series for some small improvement (that I believe) of 
the current code too.

I can certainly drop this if you don't want it, but it's just a small 
change and I don't see the benefit of sending it out separately.