linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86: Always set kvm_run->if

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 9 Dec 2021 19:55:25 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Marc Orr <marcorr@...gle.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>, vkuznets@...hat.com,
        wanpengli@...cent.com, joro@...tes.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, Thomas.Lendacky@....com,
        mlevitsk@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86: Always set kvm_run->if_flag

On 12/9/21 19:29, Marc Orr wrote:
> All that being said, after Jim added his Ack to this patch (which I
> forgot to attach to the v2), we realized that technically the ES
> patches were within their right to redefine if_flag since it's
> previous semantics are maintained for non-ES VMs and ES requires
> userspace changes anyway (PSP commands, guest memory pinning, etc.).

Correct, but it's a bit ugly to redefine the semantics and that is why I 
am going to apply the patch anyway.

Paolo

> I'm OK either way here. But I assume that if this flag is giving us
> pains it will give others pains. And this patch seems reasonable to
> me. So all things being equal, I'd prefer to proceed with it.
>