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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 20:47:53 +0300 From: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com> To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>, Li RongQing <lirongqing@...du.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/19] Revert "KVM: SVM: Introduce hybrid-AVIC mode" On Wed, 2022-08-31 at 16:19 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > On Wed, 2022-08-31 at 00:34 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > Remove SVM's so called "hybrid-AVIC mode" and reinstate the restriction > > > where AVIC is disabled if x2APIC is enabled. The argument that the > > > "guest is not supposed to access xAPIC mmio when uses x2APIC" is flat out > > > wrong. Activating x2APIC completely disables the xAPIC MMIO region, > > > there is nothing that says the guest must not access that address. > > > > > > Concretely, KVM-Unit-Test's existing "apic" test fails the subtests that > > > expect accesses to the APIC base region to not be emulated when x2APIC is > > > enabled. > > > > > > Furthermore, allowing the guest to trigger MMIO emulation in a mode where > > > KVM doesn't expect such emulation to occur is all kinds of dangerous. > > > > > > Tweak the restriction so that it only inhibits AVIC if x2APIC is actually > > > enabled instead of inhibiting AVIC is x2APIC is exposed to the guest. > > > > > > This reverts commit 0e311d33bfbef86da130674e8528cc23e6acfe16. > > > > I don't agree with this patch. > > > > When reviewing this code I did note that MMIO is left enabled which is kind > > of errata on KVM side, and nobody objected to this. > > I didn't object because I didn't read the patch. I'm very much objecting now. > And I am *very* much objecting to reverting this patch. Best regards, Maxim Levitsky
Powered by blists - more mailing lists