linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 5/5] x86/kvm: Avoid dynamic allocation of pvclock data when SEV is active

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: <20180911135519.GI11418@zn.tnic>
Date:   Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:55:19 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/5] x86/kvm: Avoid dynamic allocation of pvclock data
 when SEV is active

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 01:07:06PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> If the host TSCs are unsynchronized then yes, that's what happens.  And
> you can do live migration from synchronized to unsynchronized.

Which brings us back to my original question: why would we *ever* want
to support unsynchronized TSCs in a guest? Such machines are a real
abomination for baremetal - it doesn't make *any* sense to me to have
that in guests too, if it can be helped...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--