linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] KVM: x86: Refactor __kvm_emulate

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: <Z1igJYxwSxTk_DHF@google.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 12:10:13 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>, Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, 
	Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] KVM: x86: Refactor __kvm_emulate_hypercall() into
 a macro

On Tue, Dec 10, 2024, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 11/28/24 01:43, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > +#define __kvm_emulate_hypercall(_vcpu, nr, a0, a1, a2, a3, op_64_bit, cpl, complete_hypercall)	\
> > +({												\
> > +	int __ret;										\
> > +												\
> > +	__ret = ____kvm_emulate_hypercall(_vcpu,						\
> > +					  kvm_##nr##_read(_vcpu), kvm_##a0##_read(_vcpu),	\
> > +					  kvm_##a1##_read(_vcpu), kvm_##a2##_read(_vcpu),	\
> > +					  kvm_##a3##_read(_vcpu), op_64_bit, cpl,		\
> > +					  complete_hypercall);					\
> > +												\
> > +	if (__ret > 0)										\
> > +		complete_hypercall(_vcpu);							\
> 
> So based on the review of the previous patch this should become
> 
> 	__ret = complete_hypercall(_vcpu);
> 
> Applied with this change to kvm-coco-queue, thanks.

I was planning on applying this for 6.14.  Should I still do that, or do you want
to take the bulk of the series through kvm/next, or maybe let it set in
kvm-coco-queue?  I can't think of any potential conflicts off the top of my head,
and the refactoring is really only useful for TDX.

Patch 1 should go in sooner than later though.