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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 27 Mar 2018 15:29:29 +0800
From:   Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        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"

2018-03-27 15:25 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>:
> 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?

Yeah, thanks for the review. :)

Regards,
Wanpeng Li