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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>
To:     <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     <kernellwp@...il.com>, <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: VMX: Add Force Emulation Prefix for "emulate the
 next instruction"


----- pbonzini@...hat.com wrote:

> On 27/03/2018 09:52, Liran Alon wrote:
> > In addition, I think this module parameter should be in kvm module
> > (not kvm_intel) and you should add similar logic to kvm_amd module
> (SVM)
> 
> If you can move handle_ud to x86.c, then it makes sense to have the
> module parameter in the kvm module.  I haven't checked.

I don't see a reason why you couldn't do that.

> 
> Otherwise you would have to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL the variable; in the

This is what I did for enable_vmware_backdoor module parameter.
I think this is what should be done in this case as-well.

> end
> it's just a debugging tool, so it'd be simpler to just add it
> separately
> to kvm_intel and kvm_amd.

I agree it's just a debugging tool. But no reason for it to be used differently
when running tests on Intel CPU vs. AMD CPU.
I think the effort to fix this is low.

> 
> Paolo