linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: VMX: Add Force Emulation Prefix for "emulate the next instruction"

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]

Date:   Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:25:05 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: VMX: Add Force Emulation Prefix for "emulate the
 next instruction"

On 27/03/2018 07:18, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> I think a global module is enough for testing.
> If so, perhaps have it wrapped with #ifdef DEBUG?
> 
> No need to put code gadgets that won't be utilized 99% of time.

It is going to be used a lot in testing, actually.  There are quite a
few emulate.c bugfixes that are hard to test (see for example the
syscall eflags.tf bug that can currently be tested only on Intel) and
having something like this can only improve our coverage.

#ifdef DEBUG is almost always a bad idea, and though I agree that the
commit messages can be improved, I think the module parameter is the way
to go.

Wanpeng, can you also add it to svm.c?

Thanks,

Paolo