linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/kconfig/32: Mark CONFIG

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: <20150710141351.GB16910@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:13:52 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/kconfig/32: Mark CONFIG_VM86 as BROKEN


* Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:

> > Hmm.
> > 
> > If we did this, I think I'd prefer a slightly more general approach. First 
> > teach KVM to support a mode in which it's purely an emulator (Paolo: how hard 
> > is this?  It would also make testing the emulator much easier).
> 
> This isn't hard, at least for Intel: make emulation_required() return true 
> always (and fix the fallout).  However, it's not necessary.  The emulator is 
> designed to be independent from the rest of KVM.  At some point I think Avi was 
> testing it in userspace (or planning to do so). So you would just move it from 
> arch/x86/kvm to arch/x86/emulate.

Very nice!

> The obvious downside is that the emulator isn't really designed for speed.
>
> In KVM it's currently 1000-1500 times slower than the real thing.  Even if you 
> modified it to remove the KVM overhead (vm86 is just running ring 3 code; no 
> interrupts and no pagetables to walk), it probably would take 300-500 cycles to 
> execute one instruction.

This needs to be tested, but I wouldn't expect it to be a big issue:

 - if anyone cares they can improve its performance

 - or worst case they can upgrade their tool to something newer which will use 
   user-space emulation of 16-bit code anyway ...

 - Furthermore I suspect with vm86 we'd trap out of vm86 mode rather often - and a 
   single trap can take thousands of cycles. So I suspect the effective slowdown 
   depends on the workload.

 - In the absolute worst case it will perform like a really old CPU.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/