linux-kernel - Re: [PART1 RFC v2 07/10] svm: Add VMEXIT handlers for AVIC

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: <56E0017A.2020201@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 9 Mar 2016 11:56:58 +0100
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Cc:	Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
	joro@...tes.org, bp@...en8.de, gleb@...nel.org,
	alex.williamson@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, wei@...hat.com,
	sherry.hurwitz@....com
Subject: Re: [PART1 RFC v2 07/10] svm: Add VMEXIT handlers for AVIC



On 08/03/2016 23:05, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>>> >> +	case AVIC_INCMP_IPI_ERR_INV_TARGET:
>>> >> +		pr_err("%s: Invalid IPI target (icr=%#08x:%08x, idx=%u)\n",
>>> >> +		       __func__, icrh, icrl, index);
>>> >> +		BUG();
>>> >> +		break;
>>> >> +	case AVIC_INCMP_IPI_ERR_INV_BK_PAGE:
>>> >> +		pr_err("%s: Invalid bk page (icr=%#08x:%08x, idx=%u)\n",
>>> >> +		       __func__, icrh, icrl, index);
>>> >> +		BUG();
>>> >> +		break;
>> > 
>> > Please use WARN(1, "%s: Invalid bk page (icr=%#08x:%08x, idx=%u)\n",
>> > __func__, icrh, icrl, index) (and likewise for invalid target) instead
>> > of BUG().
> I think that if we hit one of these, then WARNs would just flood the
> log.  I'd prefer WARN_ONCE on AVIC_INCMP_IPI_ERR_INV_BK_PAGE.
> (Btw. aren't icr and idx are pointless on this error?  and the function
>  name should be printed by WARN.)

Agreed.

> Invalid target is triggerable by the guest (by sending IPI to a
> non-existent LAPIC), so warning log level seems too severe.
> pr_info_ratelimited() or nothing would be better.

Definitely should be nothing.

Paolo