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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 15 Dec 2020 12:55:41 -0600
From:   Michael Roth <>
To:     Sean Christopherson <>
Cc:, Paolo Bonzini <>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <>,
        Wanpeng Li <>,
        Jim Mattson <>,
        Joerg Roedel <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>, Borislav Petkov <>,, "H . Peter Anvin" <>,,
        Tom Lendacky <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: SVM: use vmsave/vmload for saving/restoring
 additional host state

Hi Sean,

Sorry to reply out-of-thread, our mail server is having issues with
certain email addresses at the moment so I only see your message via
the archives atm. But regarding:

>>> I think we can defer this until we're actually planning on running
>>> the guest,
>>> i.e. put this in svm_prepare_guest_switch().
>> It looks like the SEV-ES patches might land before this one, and those
>> introduce similar handling of VMSAVE in svm_vcpu_load(), so I think it
>> might also create some churn there if we take this approach and want
>> to keep the SEV-ES and non-SEV-ES handling similar.
>Hmm, I'll make sure to pay attention to that when I review the SEV-ES
>which I was hoping to get to today, but that's looking unlikely at this

It looks like SEV-ES patches are queued now. Those patches have
undergone a lot of internal testing so I'm really hesitant to introduce
any significant change to those at this stage as a prereq for my little
patch. So for v3 I'm a little unsure how best to approach this.

The main options are:

a) go ahead and move the vmsave handling for non-sev-es case into
   prepare_guest_switch() as you suggested, but leave the sev-es where
   they are. then we can refactor those as a follow-up patch that can be
   tested/reviewed as a separate series after we've had some time to
   re-test, though that would probably just complicate the code in the

b) stick with the current approach for now, and consider a follow-up series
   to refactor both sev-es and non-sev-es as a whole that we can test

c) refactor SEV-ES handling as part of this series. it's only a small change
   to the SEV-ES code but it re-orders enough things around that I'm
   concerned it might invalidate some of the internal testing we've done.
   whereas a follow-up refactoring such as the above options can be rolled
   into our internal testing so we can let our test teams re-verify

Obviously I prefer b) but I'm biased on the matter and fine with whatever
you and others think is best. I just wanted to point out my concerns with
the various options.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists