linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 04/22] x86/kvm: Don't call kvm_spurious

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:   Thu, 18 Jul 2019 09:12:10 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/22] x86/kvm: Don't call kvm_spurious_fault() from
 .fixup

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 03:18:50PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 18/07/19 15:16, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >> Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> >>
> >> This has a side effect of adding a jump in a generally hot path, but
> >> let's hope that the speculation gods for once help us.
> > Any reason not to take the same approach as vmx_vmenter() and ud2 directly
> > from fixup?  I've never found kvm_spurious_fault() to be all that helpful,
> > IMO it's a win win. :-)
> 
> Honestly I've never seen a backtrace from here but I would rather not
> regret this when a customer encounters it...

In theory, changing the "call kvm_spurious_fault" to ud2 should be fine.
It should be tested, of course.

I would defer to Sean to make the patch on top of mine :-)

-- 
Josh