linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86/ibrs: Introduce native_rdmsrl, and native

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: <20180112162824.xenarh43dch62h5a@treble>
Date:   Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:28:24 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
        Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86/ibrs: Introduce native_rdmsrl, and native_wrmsrl

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 09:03:56PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 01/11/2018 07:01 PM, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 06:20:13PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 5:52 PM, Raj, Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> What's wrong with native_read_msr()?
> >>>
> >>> Yes, i think i should have added to msr.h. The names didn't read as a
> >>> pair, one was native_read_msr, wrmsrl could be taken over when paravirt is
> >>> defined?
> >>
> >> Why do you need to override paravirt?
> > 
> > The idea was since these MSR's are passed through we shouldn't need to 
> > handle them any differently. Also its best to do this as soon as possible
> > and avoid longer paths to get this barrier to hardware.
> 
> We were also worried about the indirect calls that are part of the
> paravirt interfaces when retpolines are not in place.

But aren't those patched with direct calls during boot?

-- 
Josh