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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists