linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86: handle hardware breakpoints during emulation

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:	Tue, 04 Jun 2013 16:06:06 +0200
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	jan.kiszka@...mens.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86: handle hardware breakpoints during emulation

Il 04/06/2013 14:53, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
>> > 
> Yeah. What about:
>  if ((dr6 = guest_debug()))
>    return handle_gues_debug();
>  else if ((dr6 = check_bp()))
>    return handle_bp(dr6);

I'll try either this...

>>>> > >> If you do not want EMULATE_PROCEED, I can just use -1 instead in
>>>> > >> kvm_vcpu_check_breakpoint, and return if r < 0.
>>>> > >>
>>> > > But you need to know what to return EMULATE_DONE or EMULATE_USER_EXIT.
>> > 
>> > Sorry, _not_ return if r < 0.
>> > 
> Function that returns enum or -1? This is worse IMO. Return
> EMULATE_DONE/EMULATE_USER_EXIT via a pointer will be better.

... or this, and see what looks nicer.  But I like

   if (check_bp(&r))
       return r;

Thanks for the review.

Paolo

--
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/