linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v5 04/45] KVM: x86: Make "external SPTE" ops that can fail RET0 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]

Message-ID: <024d685f022684d909e3111874b906e03aa28225.camel@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2026 10:44:53 +0000
From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>, "Edgecombe, Rick P"
	<rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
CC: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "Li, Xiaoyao"
	<xiaoyao.li@...el.com>, "linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev"
	<linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>, "Zhao, Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>,
	"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "kas@...nel.org"
	<kas@...nel.org>, "binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com" <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	"Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, "ackerleytng@...gle.com"
	<ackerleytng@...gle.com>, "tglx@...nel.org" <tglx@...nel.org>, "Annapurve,
 Vishal" <vannapurve@...gle.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
	"sagis@...gle.com" <sagis@...gle.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 04/45] KVM: x86: Make "external SPTE" ops that can
 fail RET0 static calls

On Fri, 2026-01-30 at 17:32 +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Thu, 2026-01-29 at 17:28 -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > 
> > Hmm, that's probably doable, but definitely in a separate patch. 
> > E.g. something
> > like:
> 
> I think it would be a good change. But after more consideration, I
> think the original patch is good on its own. Better to turn a bug into
> a deterministic thing, than an opportunity to consume stack. Seems to
> be what you intended.
> 
> Another idea would be to have a variant that returns an error instead
> of 0 so the callers can have there error logic triggered, but it's all
> incremental value on top of this.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>

Makes sense.

Reviewed-by: Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>