linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/69] KVM: X86: TDX support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YQgLRLPz3YNiIVK6@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 2 Aug 2021 15:12:04 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     isaku.yamahata@...el.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, erdemaktas@...gle.com,
        Connor Kuehl <ckuehl@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        isaku.yamahata@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/69] KVM: X86: TDX support

On Mon, Aug 02, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 28/07/21 18:51, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > I strongly object to merging these two until we see the new SEAMLDR code:
> > 
> >    [RFC PATCH v2 02/69] KVM: X86: move kvm_cpu_vmxon() from vmx.c to virtext.h
> >    [RFC PATCH v2 03/69] KVM: X86: move out the definition vmcs_hdr/vmcs from kvm to x86
> > 
> > If the SEAMLDR code ends up being fully contained in KVM, then this is unnecessary
> > churn and exposes code outside of KVM that we may not want exposed (yet).  E.g.
> > setting and clearing CR4.VMXE (in the fault path) in cpu_vmxon() may not be
> > necessary/desirable for SEAMLDR, we simply can't tell without seeing the code.
> 
> Fair enough (though, for patch 2, it's a bit weird to have vmxoff in
> virtext.h and not vmxon).

I don't really disagree, but vmxoff is already in virtext.h for the emergency
reboot stuff.  This series only touches the vmxon code.