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: <e6b24844-e749-f3c3-3847-8bff14a68d6d@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Nov 2017 16:39:27 +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 17:54, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 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.

Hi Yi Zhang,

are you going to work on nested SPP?  I guess that would be most useful
way to add SPP support to KVM (and you could also test it with
kvm-unit-tests).

Thanks,

Paolo