linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/8] KVM: x86: Trace re-injected exceptions

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]

Date:   Mon, 4 Apr 2022 16:14:54 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.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,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Maciej S . Szmigiero" <maciej.szmigiero@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] KVM: x86: Trace re-injected exceptions

On Mon, Apr 04, 2022, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Sat, 2022-04-02 at 01:09 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Trace exceptions that are re-injected, not just those that KVM is
> > injecting for the first time.  Debugging re-injection bugs is painful
> > enough as is, not having visibility into what KVM is doing only makes
> > things worse.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 8 ++++----
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > index 7a066cf92692..384091600bc2 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > @@ -9382,6 +9382,10 @@ int kvm_check_nested_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >  
> >  static void kvm_inject_exception(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >  {
> > +	trace_kvm_inj_exception(vcpu->arch.exception.nr,
> > +				vcpu->arch.exception.has_error_code,
> > +				vcpu->arch.exception.error_code);
> > +
> 
> Can we use a {new tracepoint / new parameter for this tracepoint} for this to
> avoid confusion?

Good idea, a param to capture re-injection would be very helpful.