linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] powerpc: fix 32-bit KVM-PR lockup and panic with MacOS guest

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]

Date:   Mon, 11 Feb 2019 11:30:54 +1100
From:   Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:     Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayland@...nde.co.uk>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>, paulus@...ba.org,
        mpe@...erman.id.au, npiggin@...il.com,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: fix 32-bit KVM-PR lockup and panic with MacOS
 guest

On Fri, 2019-02-08 at 14:51 +0000, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> 
> Indeed, but there are still some questions to be asked here:
> 
> 1) Why were these bits removed from the original bitmask in the first place without
> it being documented in the commit message?
> 
> 2) Is this the right fix? I'm told that MacOS guests already run without this patch
> on a G5 under 64-bit KVM-PR which may suggest that this is a workaround for another
> bug elsewhere in the 32-bit powerpc code.
> 
> 
> If you think that these points don't matter, then I'm happy to resubmit the patch
> as-is based upon your comments above.

We should write a test case to verify that FE0/FE1 are properly
preserved/context-switched etc... I bet if we accidentally wiped them,
we wouldn't notice 99.9% of the time.

Cheers,
Ben.