linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 0/3] KVM: VMX: Allow to disable ioport intercept per-VM by userspace

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: <15cfb8d4b88c4eab84a474d32300118e@advaoptical.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 May 2018 13:48:41 +0000
From:   Tim Shearer <TShearer@...aoptical.com>
To:     Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/3] KVM: VMX: Allow to disable ioport intercept per-VM by
 userspace

> From: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 9:03 PM
> 
> Yeah, both you and Liran give the original idea. :) Tim and Liran, any
> review for the patchset?
> 

> +Architectures: x86
> +Parameters: args[0] defines whether ioport intercept

Agree with Konrad that the flexibility of specifying the ioport via args[1] could be valuable, otherwise this looks good to me. Thank you!

Reviewed-by: Tim Shearer <tshearer@...aoptical.com>