linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] KVM: VMX: introduce vmx_need_pf

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:   Mon, 22 Jun 2020 15:57:14 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Mohammed Gamal <mgamal@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        "Moger, Babu" <babu.moger@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] KVM: VMX: introduce vmx_need_pf_intercept

On 20/06/20 00:45, Jim Mattson wrote:
>> +               /*
>> +                * TODO: if both L0 and L1 need the same MASK and MATCH,
>> +                * go ahead and use it?
>> +                */
> I'm not sure there's much "TODO", since L0's MASK and MATCH are both
> 0. So, if L1's MASK and MATCH are also both 0, we would go ahead and
> use 0's, which it seems we already do here:

True, the comment should be moved to patch 8.

Paolo

>> +               vmcs_write32(PAGE_FAULT_ERROR_CODE_MASK, 0);
>> +               vmcs_write32(PAGE_FAULT_ERROR_CODE_MATCH, 0);