linux-kernel - Re: [RFC KVM 06/27] KVM: x86: Exit KVM isolation on IRQ entry

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, 13 May 2019 08:51:04 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        jan.setjeeilers@...cle.com, Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>,
        Jonathan Adams <jwadams@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC KVM 06/27] KVM: x86: Exit KVM isolation on IRQ entry

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 7:39 AM Alexandre Chartre
<alexandre.chartre@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> From: Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>
>
> Next commits will change most of KVM #VMExit handlers to run
> in KVM isolated address space. Any interrupt handler raised
> during execution in KVM address space needs to switch back
> to host address space.
>
> This patch makes sure that IRQ handlers will run in full
> host address space instead of KVM isolated address space.

IMO this needs to be somewhere a lot more central.  What about NMI and
MCE?  Or async page faults?  Or any other entry?

--Andy