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:   Tue, 26 Jan 2021 16:13:48 -0800
From:   Sean Christopherson <>
To:     Babu Moger <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] KVM: SVM: Add support for Virtual SPEC_CTRL

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021, Babu Moger wrote:
> On 1/19/21 5:45 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:

> > Potentially harebrained alternative...
> > 
> > From an architectural SVM perspective, what are the rules for VMCB fields that
> > don't exist (on the current hardware)?  E.g. are they reserved MBZ?  If not,
> > does the SVM architecture guarantee that reserved fields will not be modified?
> > I couldn't (quickly) find anything in the APM that explicitly states what
> > happens with defined-but-not-existent fields.
> I checked with our hardware design team about this. They dont want
> software to make any assumptions about these fields.

Drat, I should have begged for forgiveness instead of asking for permission :-D

Powered by blists - more mailing lists