linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/61] KVM: x86: Introduce KVM cpu caps

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 28 Feb 2020 08:04:13 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/61] KVM: x86: Introduce KVM cpu caps

On 28/02/20 02:37, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>> Would it be better or worse if we eliminate set_supported_cpuid() hook
>>> completely by doing an ugly hack like (completely untested):
>> Yes, it makes sense.
> Works for me, I'll tack it on.  I think my past self kept it because I was
> planning on using vmx_set_supported_cpuid() for SGX, which adds multiple
> sub-leafs, but I'm pretty sure I can squeeze them into kvm_cpu_caps with
> a few extra shenanigans.
> 

We can add it back for full CPUID leaves; it may even make sense to move
PT processing there (but not in this series).

Paolo