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: <588983c3-4ceb-071e-260b-869613655951@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Apr 2018 07:09:00 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Cc:     Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@...hat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: X86: Allow userspace to define the microcode version

On 24/04/2018 05:14, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> You would need to include the microcode version in the migration stream.
> 
> But this brings another point - what if we want to manifest certain
> new CPUID bits?

You don't do that across migration.  Generally if you want to do live
migration and you set up the guest to know everything about the host
(down to the microcode level), you should make sure your host are pretty
much identical.

Paolo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ