linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: SVM: Do not issue virtual VMLOAD/VMSAVE supported-message

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: <ec28c276-326a-ee40-d0d3-434f5a33afe4@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Sep 2017 14:54:05 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Janakarajan Natarajan <Janakarajan.Natarajan@....com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: SVM: Do not issue virtual VMLOAD/VMSAVE
 supported-message

On 05.09.2017 19:06, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
> 
> There's no need to issue that everytime during boot - we have the
> /proc/cpuinfo flag for people and software to query.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
> Cc: Janakarajan Natarajan <Janakarajan.Natarajan@....com>
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/svm.c | 5 +----
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
> index 8dbd8dbc83eb..f25e5b930932 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
> @@ -1101,11 +1101,8 @@ static __init int svm_hardware_setup(void)
>  	if (vls) {
>  		if (!npt_enabled ||
>  		    !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_V_VMSAVE_VMLOAD) ||
> -		    !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64)) {
> +		    !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64))
>  			vls = false;
> -		} else {
> -			pr_info("Virtual VMLOAD VMSAVE supported\n");
> -		}
>  	}
>  
>  	return 0;
> 

Maybe go one step further and incorporate everything (+vls) into a
single if statement?

-- 

Thanks,

David