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  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, 13 May 2019 10:44:05 +0100
From:   Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org>
To:     Dongjiu Geng <gengdongjiu@...wei.com>
Cc:     Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@....com>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        kvm-devel <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        arm-mail-list <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, Zheng Xiang <zhengxiang9@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2] kvm: arm64: export memory error recovery
 capability to user space

On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 07:32, Dongjiu Geng <gengdongjiu@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> When user space do memory recovery, it will check whether KVM and
> guest support the error recovery, only when both of them support,
> user space will do the error recovery. This patch exports this
> capability of KVM to user space.
>
> Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Dongjiu Geng <gengdongjiu@...wei.com>
> ---
> v1->v2:
> 1. check whether host support memory failure instead of RAS capability
>    https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10730827/
>
> v1:
> 1. User space needs to check this capability of host is suggested by Peter[1],
> this patch as RFC tag because user space patches are still under review,
> so this kernel patch is firstly sent out for review.
>
> [1]: https://patchwork.codeaurora.org/patch/652261/
> ---

I thought the conclusion of the thread on the v1 patch was that
userspace doesn't need to specifically ask the host kernel if
it has support for this -- if it does not, then the host kernel
will just never deliver userspace any SIGBUS with MCEERR code,
which is fine. Or am I still confused?

thanks
-- PMM

Powered by blists - more mailing lists