linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] KVM: s390: wire up seb feature

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: <db8adc42-2d57-68ee-9532-79a7020fe914@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:32:11 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
        Marcus Meissner <meissner@...e.de>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] KVM: s390: wire up seb feature

On 17/01/2018 12:29, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> The problem is not that I announce the facility, I in fact announce that the
>> programmatic interface is available (the sebc sync reg and the usage of that field).
>> (So the CAP is part of this patch to have both in lockstep)
>> A non-existing facility will then just disable that programmatic interface.
> To put it differently. CAP_S390_GS and CAP_S390_SEB could also just
> do a 
> 
> return 1;
> 
> and the QEMU has to check both (which it probably does anyway)

I see.  Thanks for the explanation!

Paolo