linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] Documentation: KVM: add API issues section

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: <Yjtj8qESPWIL221r@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Mar 2022 18:16:18 +0000
From:   Oliver Upton <oupton@...gle.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        mlevitsk@...hat.com, jmattson@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Documentation: KVM: add API issues section

Hi Paolo,

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:07:12PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Add a section to document all the different ways in which the KVM API sucks.
> 
> I am sure there are way more, give people a place to vent so that userspace
> authors are aware.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>

Do you think we should vent about our mistakes inline with the
descriptions of the corresponding UAPI? One example that comes to mind
is ARM's CNTV_CVAL_EL0/CNTVCT_EL0 mixup, which is mentioned in 4.68
'KVM_SET_ONE_REG'. That, of course, doesn't cover the
previously-undocumented bits of UAPI that are problematic :)

If we go that route we likely should have a good format for documenting
the ugliness.

--
Thanks,
Oliver