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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cec32ec2-6f71-0f51-8411-8d6a94881f55@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Mar 2018 14:24:58 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/kvm/vmx: read MSR_FS_BASE from current->thread

On 13/03/2018 14:20, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> vmcs_writel() I guess ... and, just to make sure I follow your
> suggestion, this is for x86_64 only, right? x86_32 does
> 
> vmcs_writel(HOST_FS_BASE, segment_base(vmx->host_state.fs_sel));
> 
> and I think it needs to stay.

Yes.

> (personally, I'm rather for exporting save_fsgs(), dropping
> savesegment() and getting all we need from current to avoid propagating
> assumptions but I'm flexible)

Yes, that's fine too, as long as it's not mix and match. :)

Paolo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ