linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/reboot: Disable virtualization in an emergency if SVM is supported

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87mtfmvjkz.ffs@tglx>
Date:   Thu, 12 May 2022 17:47:40 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Guilherme G . Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/reboot: Disable virtualization in an emergency
 if SVM is supported

On Thu, May 12 2022 at 14:39, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> What about leaving cpu_crash_disable_virtualization() inside the if-statement?
> It feels wierd to "disable" virtualization on the current CPU but ignore others,
> e.g. if there's some newfangled type of virtualization in the future, I would be
> quite surprised if only the CPU doing the transfer needed to disable virtualization.

No real preference, though you have the unconditional invocation already
in the crash code IIRC.

Thanks,

        tglx