linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 13/15] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Make mmu notifier callbacks to check kvm

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: <CABgObfbySgLD5V2Si9gURoPfzYrR8n1DSDB16o24MfBwSsusTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 11:15:12 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Cc: "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>, "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>, 
	"sagis@...gle.com" <sagis@...gle.com>, 
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@...gle.com>, 
	"Zhao, Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>, "dmatlack@...gle.com" <dmatlack@...gle.com>, 
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, 
	"isaku.yamahata@...il.com" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/15] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Make mmu notifier callbacks to
 check kvm_process

On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 12:12 AM Edgecombe, Rick P
<rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 10:56 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Subject: propagate enum kvm_process to MMU notifier callbacks
> >
> > But again, the naming... I don't like kvm_process - in an OS process
> > is a word with a clear meaning. Yes, that is a noun and this is a
> > verb, but then naming an enum with a verb is also awkward.
> >
> > Perhaps kvm_gfn_range_filter and range->attr_filter? A bit wordy but very
> > clear:
> >
> > enum kvm_tdp_mmu_root_types types =
> >     kvm_gfn_range_filter_to_root_types(kvm, range->attr_filter)
> >
> > I think I like it.
>
> Agree 'process' sticks out. Somehow having attr_filter and args.attributes in
> the same struct feels a bit wrong. Not that process was a lot better.
>
> I guess attr_filter is more about alias ranges, and args.attribute is more about
> conversion to various types of memory (private, shared and ideas of other types
> I guess). But since today we only have private and shared, I wonder if there is
> some way to combine them within struct kvm_gfn_range? I've not thought this all
> the way through.

I think it's better that they stay separate. One is an argument
(args.attribute), the other is not, it should be clear enough.

Paolo