linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] x86/msr: Add write msr notrace to avoid the debug codes splash

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: <CANRm+CynByMND6h5U0cjOQds4ijV6brkXA38D2k_ehx83ca+xw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:02:08 +0800
From:   Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86/msr: Add write msr notrace to avoid the debug
 codes splash

2016-10-26 15:56 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>:
>
>
> On 26/10/2016 09:55, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>>> >> -static void kvm_guest_apic_eoi_write(u32 reg, u32 val)
>>>> >> +static void kvm_guest_apic_eoi_write_notrace(u32 reg, u32 val)
>>> >
>>> > Huh, this is not notrace?!?
>> Sorry, maybe I misunderstand you.
>>
>> ack_APIC_irq()
>>   -> apic_eoi()
>>     -> apic->eoi_write()
>>       -> kvm_guest_apic_eoi_write()
>>         -> apic->native_eoi_write()
>>           -> native_apic_msr_eoi_write()
>>             -> wrmsr_notrace()
>>               -> native_write_msr_notrace()
>>           -> native_apic_mem_write()
>>
>> The call path is notrace. Where I miss?
>
> kvm_guest_apic_eoi_write should be marked as notrace, shouldn't it?

I see. notrace static void kvm_guest_apic_eoi_write_notrace(u32 reg,
u32 val) and notrace static void kvm_guest_apic_eoi_write(u32 reg, u32
val), which one you prefer?

Regards,
Wanpeng Li