linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] KVM: SVM: Update "APICv in x2APIC without x2AVIC" in avic.c, not svm.c

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: <aND11RilfAPJ7ud6@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 15:08:05 +0800
From: Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: Naveen N Rao <naveen@...nel.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Rick Edgecombe
	<rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, Xin Li <xin@...or.com>, Xiaoyao Li
	<xiaoyao.li@...el.com>, Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>, Yan Zhao
	<yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] KVM: SVM: Update "APICv in x2APIC without x2AVIC"
 in avic.c, not svm.c

>Question then.  Does anyone have a preference/opinion between explicitly passing
>in ops to vendor specific helpers, vs. making {svm,vt}_x86_ops globally visible?
>
>I don't love creating "hidden" dependencies, in quotes because in this case it's
>relatively easy to establish that the setup() helpers modify {svm,vt}_x86_ops,
>i.e. surprises should be rare.
>
>On the other hand, I do agree it's helpful to be able to see exactly where
>{svm,vt}_x86_ops are updated.

I think passing in ops to vendor-specific helpers looks a bit indirect as the
parameter should always be svm_x86_ops for AMD or vt_x86_ops for Intel.

I slightly prefer making {svm,vt}_x86_ops globally visible.

>
>And most importantly, I want to be consistent between VMX and SVM, i.e. I want
>to pick one and stick with it.