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: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 10:10:12 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> To: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com> Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org, "J. Kiszka" <jan.kiszka@...mens.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86: avoid simultaneous queueing of both IRQ and SMI On 05/06/2016 05:28, Wanpeng Li wrote: >> > No, I don't think so, the existing req_immediate_exit case is only after >> > a VMLAUNCH/VMRESUME vmexit, in which case we already have a >> > >> > if (vmx->nested.nested_run_pending) >> > kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu); >> > >> > in vmx_vcpu_run. > Do you think this can be removed since it blindly request a > KVM_REQ_EVENT even if there is no still-pending event to L1 which > blocked by nested_run_pending, however, req_immediate_exit can > indicate there is a pending event blocked by nested_run_pending and > the request KVM_REQUEST_EVENT added in your patch can guarantee inject > this pending event in the next nested vmexit. Yes, I think so. Thanks, Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists