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  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, 06 Mar 2020 11:15:20 +0100
From:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <>,
        linmiaohe <>
Cc:     "rkrcmar\" <>,
        "sean.j.christopherson\" <>,
        "jmattson\" <>,
        "joro\" <>,
        "tglx\" <>,
        "mingo\" <>,
        "bp\" <>, "hpa\" <>,
        "kvm\" <>,
        "linux-kernel\" <>,
        "x86\" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Use wrapper macro ~RMODE_GUEST_OWNED_EFLAGS_BITS directly

Paolo Bonzini <> writes:

> On 06/03/20 10:44, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>>> X86_EFLAGS_VM) as suggested by Vitaly seems a good way to fix this ?
>>>> Thanks.
>>> No, what if a host-owned flag was zero?  I'd just leave it as is.
>> I'm not saying my suggestion was a good idea but honestly I'm failing to
>> wrap my head around this. The suggested 'RMODE_HOST_OWNED_EFLAGS_BITS'
>> would just be a define for (X86_EFLAGS_IOPL | X86_EFLAGS_VM) so
>> technically the patch would just be nop, no?
> It would not be a nop for the reader.
> Something called RMODE_{GUEST,HOST}_OWNED_EFLAGS_BITS is a mask.  It
> tells you nothing about whether those bugs are 0 or 1.  It's just by
> chance that all three host-owned EFLAGS bits are 1 while in real mode.
> It wouldn't be the case if, for example, we ran the guest using vm86
> mode extensions (i.e. setting CR4.VME=1).  Then VIF would be host-owned,
> but it wouldn't necessarily be 1.

Got it, it's the name which is causing the confusion, we're using mask
as something different. Make sense, let's keep the code as-is then.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists