linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 03/11] KVM: SVM: Change intercept

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]

Message-ID: <3841a638-eb9e-fae6-a6b6-04fec0e64b50@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Jul 2020 01:12:07 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>, Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/11] KVM: SVM: Change intercept_dr to generic
 intercepts

On 29/07/20 01:59, Jim Mattson wrote:
>>         case SVM_EXIT_READ_DR0 ... SVM_EXIT_WRITE_DR7: {
>> -               u32 bit = 1U << (exit_code - SVM_EXIT_READ_DR0);
>> -               if (svm->nested.ctl.intercept_dr & bit)
>> +               if (__is_intercept(&svm->nested.ctl.intercepts, exit_code))
> Can I assume that all of these __<function> calls will become
> <function> calls when the grand unification is done? (Maybe I should
> just look ahead.)
> 

The <function> calls are reserved for the active VMCB while these take a
vector.  Probably it would be nicer to call them
vmcb_{set,clr,is}_intercept and make them take a struct
vmcb_control_area*, but apart from that the concept is fine

Once we do the vmcb01/vmcb02/vmcb12 work, there will not be anymore
&svm->nested.ctl (replaced by &svm->nested.vmcb12->ctl) and we will be
able to change them to take a struct vmcb*.  Then is_intercept would for
example be simply:

	return vmcb_is_intercept(svm->vmcb, nr);

as expected.

Paolo