linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 06/17] x86/apic: Add support to send IPI for Secure AVIC

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: <87y0whv57k.ffs@tglx>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2025 13:45:35 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Neeraj Upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: bp@...en8.de, mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
 Thomas.Lendacky@....com, nikunj@....com, Santosh.Shukla@....com,
 Vasant.Hegde@....com, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com, David.Kaplan@....com,
 x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, peterz@...radead.org, seanjc@...gle.com,
 pbonzini@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
 huibo.wang@....com, naveen.rao@....com, francescolavra.fl@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/17] x86/apic: Add support to send IPI for Secure AVIC

On Tue, Apr 01 2025 at 17:06, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/x2apic_savic.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/x2apic_savic.c
> @@ -46,6 +46,25 @@ static __always_inline void set_reg(unsigned int offset, u32 val)
>  
>  #define SAVIC_ALLOWED_IRR	0x204
>  
> +static inline void update_vector(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int offset,
> +				 unsigned int vector, bool set)

Why aren't you placing that function right away there instead of adding
it first somewhere else and then shuffle it around?

> -static void __send_ipi_mask(const struct cpumask *mask, int vector, bool excl_self)
> +static void send_ipi_mask(const struct cpumask *mask, unsigned int vector, bool excl_self)
>  {
> -	unsigned long query_cpu;
> -	unsigned long this_cpu;
> +	unsigned int this_cpu;
> +	unsigned int cpu;

Again. Do it right in the first place and not later. Same for the
underscores of the function name.