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]
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