linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC dontapply] kvm_para: add mmio word store hypercall

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]

Date:	Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:11:53 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC:	Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC dontapply] kvm_para: add mmio word store hypercall

On 03/26/2012 01:30 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >
> > > > 
> > > > > +			run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_MMIO;
> > > > > +			run->mmio.phys_addr = gpa;
> > > > > +			memcpy(run->mmio.data, &a0, 2);
> > > > > +			run->mmio.len = 2;
> > > > > +			run->mmio.is_write = 1;
> > > > > +                        r = 0;
> > > > > +		}
> > > > > +		goto noret;
> > > > 
> > > > What if the address is in RAM?
> > > > Note the guest can't tell if a piece of memory is direct mapped or
> > > > implemented as mmio.
> > >
> > > True but doing hypercalls for memory which can be
> > > mapped directly is bad for performance - it's
> > > the reverse of what we are trying to do here.
> > 
> > It's bad, but the guest can't tell.
> > 
> > Suppose someone implements virtio in hardware and we pass it through to
> > a guest.  It should continue working, no?
>
> Why would we want hypercalls then?
>
> As I see it, virtio device would have a capability
> that tells the guest to use hypercalls for access.
> An actual PCI device won't expose this capability,
> as would a device on a host which lacks the hypercall.

Ok, makes sense.

> > > The intent is to use this for virtio where we can explicitly let the
> > > guest know whether using a hypercall is safe.
> > >
> > > Acceptable?  What do you suggest?
> > 
> > It's iffy.
>
> Question is, do we want a bunch of dead code sitting there
> just in case? And what are the chances it'll work correctly
> when we need it to?

If we make it device specific, I guess not.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/