linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v4 0/3] KVM/x86: Enhancements to static calls

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: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:55:05 +0000
From: "Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, "pbonzini@...hat.com"
	<pbonzini@...hat.com>
CC: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 0/3] KVM/x86: Enhancements to static calls

On Wednesday, June 12, 2024 9:19 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, 07 May 2024 21:31:00 +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > This patchset introduces the kvm_x86_call() and kvm_pmu_call() macros
> > to streamline the usage of static calls of kvm_x86_ops and
> > kvm_pmu_ops. The current static_call() usage is a bit verbose and can
> > lead to code alignment challenges, and the addition of kvm_x86_ prefix
> > to hooks at the
> > static_call() sites hinders code readability and navigation. The use
> > of
> > static_call_cond() is essentially the same as static_call() on x86, so
> > it is replaced by static_call() to simplify the code. The changes have
> > gone through my tests (guest launch, a few vPMU tests, live migration
> > tests) without an issue.
> >
> > [...]
> 
> Applied to kvm-x86 static_calls.  I may or may not rebase these commits
> depending on what all gets queued for 6.10.  There are already three conflicts
> that I know of, but they aren't _that_ annoying.  Yet.  :-)
> 

OK, thanks. Just let me know whenever you need help with rebasing.