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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 18:18:07 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> To: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com> Cc: Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>, joro@...tes.org, alex.williamson@...hat.com, gleb@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, wei@...hat.com, sherry.hurwitz@....com, "Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PART1 RFC 5/9] svm: Add VMEXIT handlers for AVIC On 18/02/2016 17:27, Radim Krčmář wrote: > 2016-02-18 16:53+0100, Paolo Bonzini: >> Patch 9 is okay, but it is also necessary to clear IsRunning in >> kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking and set it in kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking. In >> addition, vcpu_put/vcpu_load should not modify IsRunning between >> kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking and kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking. Do you agree? > > Yes. > > I think we don't need to clear IsRunning on preemption, which would > simplify the protection. (I haven't thought much about userspace exit, > so maybe we could skip that one as well, but we don't need to now.) > > The reason for that is that KVM knows that the VCPU was scheduled out, > so it couldn't do much in the AVIC VMEXIT. > (KVM could force scheduler to pritioritize the VCPU, but our kick > doesn't do that now and it seems like a bad idea.) > > Does it seem reasonable? Yes, and in fact it wouldn't need to clear and set IsRunning on vcpu_put/vcpu_load; only on vcpu_blocking/vcpu_unblocking. The IsRunning flag is more of a IsNotHalted flag, in the end. Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists