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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 10 Jul 2014 11:02:04 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <>
To:	"Liang, Kan" <>
Cc:	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] perf ignore LBR and extra_regs.

/me reminds you of 78 char text wrap.

On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 07:32:09PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > Sure; but what I meant was, check_msr() is broken when ran on such a
> > kernel. You need to fix check_msr() to return failure on these 'ignored'
> > MSRs, after all they don't function as expected, they're effectively broken.
> The function is designed to check if the MSRs can be safely accessed
> (no #GP). It cannot guarantee the correctness of the MSRs.  If KVM
> applied patch 2 and guest applied patch 1, from the guest's
> perspective, the MSRs can be accessed (no #GP triggered). So return
> true is expected. It should not be a broken. 

You're not understanding. I know you wrote that function to do that. I'm
saying that's wrong.

Look at check_hw_exists() it explicitly checks for fake MSRs and reports
them broken.

These fake MSRs _ARE_ broken, they do not behave as expected. Not
crashing is not the right consideration here, we're interested in higher
order correct behaviour.

> The only unexpected
> thing for guest is that the counting/sampling result for LBR/extra reg
> is always 0. But the patch is a short term fix to stop things from
> crashing. I think it should be acceptable.

Patch 2 is fine, patch 1, in particular your check_msr() routine is not.
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