linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: x86: WARN and reject loading KVM if NX is supported but not enabled

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: <6ea2385a-9abe-82b8-6c57-8dc3aac824b2@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Jun 2021 12:27:27 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: x86: WARN and reject loading KVM if NX is
 supported but not enabled

On 16/06/21 00:39, Jim Mattson wrote:
>>
>>          rdmsrl_safe(MSR_EFER, &host_efer);
>> +       if (WARN_ON_ONCE(boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_NX) &&
>> +                        !(host_efer & EFER_NX)))
>> +               return -EIO;
> Input/output error? Is that really the most appropriate error here?
> Why not, say, -ENOTSUP?
> 
> I'm sure there's some arcane convention here that I'm not privy to.:-)
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jim Mattson<jmattson@...gle.com>
> 

EIO often means "how the heck did we get here?" or "look in dmesg to get 
more info", both of which I think are appropriate after a WARN.

Paolo