linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL (sort of)] KVM: x86: Static call changes for 6.11

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4b0fd060-7095-46f2-840b-f5d88f94eecf@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 07:52:40 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL (sort of)] KVM: x86: Static call changes for 6.11

On 7/16/24 17:46, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> No, I think you misread the #if-#elif-#else.  It's only the !HAVE_STATIC_CALL
> case that requires use of static_call_cond().

Oh, of course - the "select HAVE_STATIC_CALL" is right above the "select 
  HAVE_STATIC_CALL_INLINE if HAVE_OBJTOOL" line.  I was definitely 
overthinking it.

Paolo