linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] KVM: x86: kvm_mwait_in

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, 3 May 2017 21:45:57 +0200
From:   Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>
To:     Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        "Gabriel L. Somlo" <gsomlo@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] KVM: x86: kvm_mwait_in_guest() cleanup and fixes



On 03.05.17 21:37, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> kvm_mwait_in_guest() was overcomplicated and also missed one AMD bug
> that should prevent MWAIT pass through.
>
> This series ignores errata that don't have any Linux bug defined;
> I know of two minor (not affecting the host) Core 2 errata:
>   AG36.  Split Locked Stores May not Trigger the Monitoring Hardware
>   AG106.  A REP STOS/MOVS to a MONITOR/MWAIT Address Range May Prevent
>           Triggering of the Monitoring Hardware
>
> None of them are really worthy of a new condition if Linux never hit
> them ... we still have the OS X bug that Gabriel is hitting, but I'm ok
> with the original approach that sacrificed it for "greater good".

I like the series :)

Reviewed-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>


Alex