linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 00/10] Intel EPT-Based Sub-page Write Protection Support.

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: <b99bcf08-5a4a-1931-3fe3-a8747c38f5b1@redhat.com>
Date:   Sat, 4 Nov 2017 17:54:20 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        rkrcmar@...hat.com, ravi.sahita@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/10] Intel EPT-Based Sub-page Write Protection
 Support.

On 04/11/2017 01:12, Yi Zhang wrote:
>>
> Adding Ravi, 
> 
> Does anyone have further comments on current implementation, it is a
> important feature in our next generation chip-set.

What matters is not the feature, but the use case; without a use case,
there is no point in including code for SPP in KVM.  KVM doesn't use
VMFUNC or #VE for example, because they are not necessary.

SPP may become useful once we have the introspection interface.  Or, if
another hypervisor uses it, support for nested SPP may be useful (for
example we support nested VMFUNC and should get nested #VE sooner or
later, even though the features are not used on bare metal).

Right now, however, supporting SPP does not seem to be particularly
important honestly.

Paolo