linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kvm: nVMX: fix entry with pending interrupt if APICv is enabled

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]

Message-ID: <8e6e1929-5b09-0a6f-60ea-993f758ab2fe@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Oct 2018 16:54:46 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Nikita Leshchenko <nikita.leshchenko@...cle.com>,
        Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: nVMX: fix entry with pending interrupt if APICv is
 enabled

On 03/10/2018 16:53, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Isn't enable_apicv redundant with kvm_vcpu_apicv_active()?  And since
> getting RVI requires a VMREAD, I think it would make sense to only
> fall into this code if !evaluate_pending_interrupts, e.g.:
> 
> 	if (!evaluate_pending_interrupts && kvm_vcpu_apicv_active(vcpu))
> 		evaluate_pending_interrupts |= vmx_get_rvi() > 0;

Yes, both suggestions make sense.  I'll make it
likely(!evaluate_pending_interrupts).

Thanks to both you and Nikita for the quick review!

Paolo