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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 21:16:14 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com> Cc: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>, Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Nadav Amit <namit@...technion.ac.il>, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] kvm: x86: Rename KVM_DEBUGREG_RELOAD to KVM_DEBUGREG_NEED_RELOAD On 25/04/20 18:54, Nadav Amit wrote: >> I wonder if KVM_DEBUGREG_RELOAD is needed at all. It should be easy to >> write selftests for it, using the testcase in commit message >> 172b2386ed16 and the information in commit ae561edeb421. > I must be missing something, since I did not follow this thread and other > KVM changes very closely. > > Yet, for the record, I added KVM_DEBUGREG_RELOAD due to real experienced > issues that I had while running Intel’s fuzzing tests on KVM: IIRC, the DRs > were not reloaded after an INIT event that clears them. Indeed, but the code has changed since then and I'm not sure it is still needed. > Personally, I would prefer that a test for that, if added, would be added > to KVM-unit-tests, based on Liran’s INIT test. This would allow to confirm > bare-metal behaves as the VM. Yes, that would be good as well of course. Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists