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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:48:37 -0700
From:	Andi Kleen <>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <>
Cc:	Peter Wu <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
Subject: Re: GPF in intel_pmu_lbr_reset() with qemu -cpu host

"H. Peter Anvin" <> writes:
> 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.

That means we could just throw rdmsr() away and it would be completely
replaced with rdmsr_safe(). But then that will likely cause all kinds
of problems with how to handle these errors and where and how to handle
these exceptions.

I much prefer just to fix KVM. I cannot think of any case
where 0 would cause a major issue.

After all it's virtualization not "rewrite complete kernel for it"


-- -- Speaking for myself only
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists