linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 7/8] KVM: VMX: Update PID-pointer table entry when APIC ID is changed

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: <aa7db6d2-8463-2517-95ce-c0bba22e80d4@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 Jan 2022 16:05:27 +0800
From:   Zeng Guang <guang.zeng@...el.com>
To:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@....com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
        "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
Cc:     "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Hu, Robert" <robert.hu@...el.com>,
        "Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/8] KVM: VMX: Update PID-pointer table entry when APIC
 ID is changed

On 1/6/2022 10:06 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 1/5/22 7:44 PM, Zeng Guang wrote:
>> On 1/6/2022 3:13 AM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>>> On 12/31/21 8:28 AM, Zeng Guang wrote:
>>> Won't this blow up on AMD since there is no corresponding SVM op?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tom
>> Right, need check ops validness to avoid ruining AMD system. Same
>> consideration on ops "update_ipiv_pid_table" in patch8.
> Not necessarily for patch8. That is "protected" by the
> kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_PID_TABLE_UPDATE, vcpu) test, but it couldn't hurt.

OK, make sense. Thanks.

> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>> I will revise in next version. Thanks.
>>>> +        } else
>>>>                 ret = 1;
>>>>             break;
>>>>