linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] KVM: x86: add vCPU ioctl for HLT exits disable capability

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: <YdyediQZQPB7h/kU@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jan 2022 21:00:38 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Kechen Lu <kechenl@...dia.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com, wanpengli@...cent.com,
        vkuznets@...hat.com, mst@...hat.com, somduttar@...dia.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] KVM: x86: add vCPU ioctl for HLT exits
 disable capability

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Does your use case require toggling intercepts?  Or is the configuration static?
> If it's static, then the easiest thing would be to follow the per-VM behavior so
> that there are no suprises.  If toggling is required, then I think the best thing
> would be to add a prep patch to add an override flag to the per-VM ioctl, and then
> share code between the per-VM and per-vCPU paths for modifying the flags (attached
> as patch 0003).

...
 
> If toggling is not required, then I still think it makes sense to add a macro to
> handle propagating the capability args to the arch flags.

Almost forgot.  Can you please add a selftests to verify whatever per-VM and
per-vCPU behavior we end implementing?  Thanks!