linux-kernel - Re: GPF in intel_pmu_lbr_reset() with qemu -cpu host

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]

Date:	Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:41:47 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
CC:	Peter Wu <peter@...ensteyn.nl>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: GPF in intel_pmu_lbr_reset() with qemu -cpu host

On 03/21/2014 02:37 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 01:46:04PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Not really.  That is equally braindamaged.  The problem is that KVM is telling the host that our is something it simply cannot be.
> 
> Well it has to pick something. It's unlikely it will ever implement 100% of that particular CPU.
> 0 is the best you can get in many cases.
> 
> Also I thought Xen did return 0.
> 

That's why at least to some extent The Right Thing is not to try to
pretend to be a CPU you don't even know how to emulate.

But again, that has its own issues, too, mostly with userspace
optimization, and making the Linux code more resilient wouldn't hurt.
In that sense #GP(0) is *much* better than 0: it unambiguously gives an
error to work with.

However, labeling it a bug in Linux is silly.

	-hpa

--
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/