linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] KVM: nVMX: Handle dynamic MSR intercept toggling

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: <YFI7PTT5W7vzAK+i@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Mar 2021 10:24:13 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.com>,
        Yuan Yao <yaoyuan0329os@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] KVM: nVMX: Handle dynamic MSR intercept toggling

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 17/03/21 17:50, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Feel free to squash patch 3 in this one or reorder it before; it makes sense
> > > to make them macros when you go from 4 to 6 functions.
> > I put them in a separate patch so that backporting the fix for the older FS/GS
> > nVMX bug was at least feasible.  Not worth it?
> 
> Going all the way back to 5.2 would almost certainly have other conflicts,
> so probably not.

I'll do a dry run before posting v2; if it's clean I'll leave things as is, if
it's a mess I'll move the macro patch earlier.

Thanks!