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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 23 Sep 2021 08:59:11 +0800
From:   Hao Xiang <>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <>,
        Xiaoyao Li <>,
        Sean Christopherson <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Check if bus lock vmexit was preempted

On 2021/9/22 20:40, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 22/09/21 12:32, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
>> EXIT_REASON.bus_lock_detected may or may not be set when exit reason 
>> == EXIT_REASON_BUS_LOCK. Intel will update ISE or SDM to state it.
>> Maybe we can do below in handle_bus_lock_vmexit handler:
>>      if (!to_vmx(vcpu)->exit_reason.bus_lock_detected)
>>          to_vmx(vcpu)->exit_reason.bus_lock_detected = 1;
>> But is manually changing the hardware reported value for software 
>> purpose a good thing?
> No.  That said, Hao's patch is just making the code clearer; there's 
> no behavioral change since the "if" will just redo the same 
> assignments as handle_bus_lock_vmexit.
> Paolo
I agree Paolo. EXIT_REASON.bus_lock_detected may or may not be set when 
exit_reason=EXIT_REASON_BUS_LOCK,  It clould depend on hardware 
implementaion. No matter when intel states it clearly, I think it is 
better that we avoid repeated assignment by adding additional check 
condition in vmx_handle_exit.  Of course , it is also ok that 
hand_bus_lock_vmexit do nothing , but the code is not clear, and the 
code logic will be inconsistent with spec description.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists