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  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]
Date:   Wed, 2 Jan 2019 11:33:06 -0500
From:   "Liang, Kan" <>
To:     Wei Wang <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/10] KVM/x86: intel_pmu_lbr_enable

On 12/26/2018 4:25 AM, Wei Wang wrote:
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * It could be possible that people have vcpus of old model run on
> +	 * physcal cpus of newer model, for example a BDW guest on a SKX
> +	 * machine (but not possible to be the other way around).
> +	 * The BDW guest may not get accurate results on a SKX machine as it
> +	 * only reads 16 entries of the lbr stack while there are 32 entries
> +	 * of recordings. So we currently forbid the lbr enabling when the
> +	 * vcpu and physical cpu see different lbr stack entries.

I think it's not enough to only check number of entries. The LBR from/to 
MSRs may be different even the number of entries is the same, e.g SLM 
and KNL.

> +	 */
> +	switch (vcpu_model) {

That's a duplicate of intel_pmu_init(). I think it's better to factor 
out the common part if you want to check LBR MSRs and entries. Then we 
don't need to add the same codes in two different places when enabling 
new platforms.

Actually, I think we may just support LBR for guest if it has the 
identical CPU model as host. It should be good enough for now.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists