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: <65f7f051e541e4d0dbbacb22ad48a11f8696e33b.camel@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 01:06:52 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.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>, "Zhao, Yan Y"
	<yan.y.zhao@...el.com>, "Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "dmatlack@...gle.com"
	<dmatlack@...gle.com>, "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, 2024-06-08 at 11:15 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > 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.

Ok, yea. Looking at this more, it makes sense.