linux-kernel - Re: [QUERY] lguest64

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: <20130804123708.GM6042@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 4 Aug 2013 15:37:08 +0300
From:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
To:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@...cle.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <mike.rapoport@...il.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com
Subject: Re: [QUERY] lguest64

On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 03:09:34PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 06:25:04AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 07/31/2013 06:17 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The big problem with pvops is that they are a permanent tax on future
> > >> development -- a classic case of "the hooks problem."  As such it is
> > >> important that there be a real, significant, use case with enough users
> > >> to make the pain worthwhile.  With Xen looking at sunsetting PV support
> > >> with a long horizon, it might currently be possible to remove pvops some
> > > 
> > > PV MMU parts specifically.
> > > 
> > 
> > Pretty much stuff that is driverized on plain hardware doesn't matter.
> > What are you looking at with respect to the basic CPU control state?
> 
> 
> CC-ing Mukesh here.
> 
> Let me iterate down what the experimental patch uses:
> 
>          struct pv_init_ops pv_init_ops;                                         
> 		[still use xen_patch, but I think that is not needed anymore]
> 
>          struct pv_time_ops pv_time_ops;                                         
> 		[we need that as we are using the PV clock source]
> 
>          struct pv_cpu_ops pv_cpu_ops;                                           
> 		[only end up using cpuid. This one is a tricky one. We could
> 		 arguable remove it but it does do some filtering - for example
> 	 	 THERM is turned off, or MWAIT if a certain hypercall tells us to
> 		 disable that. Since this is now a trapped operation this could be
> 		 handled in the hypervisor - but then it would be in charge of
> 		 filtering certain CPUID - and this is at bootup - so there is not
> 		 user interaction. This needs a bit more of thinking]
> 
read_msr/write_msr in this one make all msr accesses safe. IIRC there
are MSRs that Linux uses without checking cpuid bits.
IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES for instance is used without checking PDCM bit.


--
			Gleb.
--
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/