linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 05/10] KVM: arm/arm64: Initialize the emulated EL1 physical timer

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:   Wed, 1 Feb 2017 10:08:01 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:     Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
Cc:     Jintack Lim <jintack@...columbia.edu>, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        rkrcmar@...hat.com, linux@...linux.org.uk, catalin.marinas@....com,
        will.deacon@....com, andre.przywara@....com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 05/10] KVM: arm/arm64: Initialize the emulated EL1
 physical timer

On 30/01/17 19:04, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 05:44:20PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:

>> Wventually, we'll have to support an offset-able
>> physical counter to support nested virtualization, but this can come at
>> a later time.
>>
> Why do we need the offset-able physical counter for nested
> virtualization?  I would think for nested virt we just need to support
> respecting how the guest hypervisor programs CNTVOFF?

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, once the guest hypervisor is in control of
its own CNTVOFF, we get everything we need. So let's just ignore this
for the time being, and we should be pretty good for this series.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...