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:   Sun, 17 May 2020 01:52:25 +0000
From:   "Luck, Tony" <>
To:     Borislav Petkov <>
CC:     Jue Wang <>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Don't try to change poison pages to uncacheable
 in a guest

But the guest isn’t likely to do the right thing with a page fault. The guest just accessed a page that it knows is poisoned (VMM just told it once that it was poisoned). There is no reason that the VMM should let the guest actually touch the poison a second time. But if the guest does, then the guest should get the expected response.  I.e. another machine check.

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 16, 2020, at 08:03, Borislav Petkov <> wrote:
> On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 02:47:42PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
>> There is only one actual machine check. But the VMM simulates a second
>> machine check to the guest when the guest tries to access the poisoned
>> page.
> If the VMM unmaps the bad page, why doesn't the guest get a #PF instead
> injected by the VMM instead of latter injecting a second #MCE?
> If the guest tries to access an unmapped page, it should get a #PF, I'd
> expect.
> -- 
> Regards/Gruss,
>    Boris.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists