linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] KVM: X86: Expose PKS to guest

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:   Fri, 5 Feb 2021 12:51:52 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Chenyi Qiang <chenyi.qiang@...el.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] KVM: X86: Expose PKS to guest

On 05/02/21 12:29, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05 2021 at 11:10, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 05/02/21 10:56, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>>> This would need an ack from the x86 people.  Andy, Boris?
>>>
>>> This looks like the PKS baremetal pile needs to be upstream first.
>>
>> Yes, it does.  I would like to have an ack for including the above two
>> hunks once PKS is upstream.
>>
>> I also have CET and bus lock #DB queued and waiting for the bare metal
>> functionality, however they do not touch anything outside arch/x86/kvm.
> 
> What's the exact point of queueing random stuff which lacks bare metal
> support?

The code is often completely independent of bare metal support even if 
it depends of it (CET and bus lock for example only share the #defines; 
for PKS this is not the case just because Intel decided not to use 
XSAVES *shrug*).

I prefer to queue early, because it keeps my backlog small and because 
every resend comes with the risk of random changes sneaking in since the 
version that I reviewed.  An early ack would also mean that I don't have 
to bug you in the middle of the merge window.  But it's not a problem, 
I'll ask for acks again once PKS is merged into tip.

Thanks,

Paolo

> Once PKS, CET or whatever is merged into tip then it's the point for
> resending the KVM patches for inclusion and that's the point where it
> gets acked and not $N month ahead when everything is still in flux.