linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/19] Revert "KVM: SVM: Introduce hybrid-AVIC mode"

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: <YxC5WI9BW+dVyXw/@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Sep 2022 13:53:28 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.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 Thu, Sep 01, 2022, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> There was actually a patch series that was fixing it, but you said, just like me,
> that it is not worth it, better to have an errata in KVM, since guest should not use
> this info anyway. I didn't object to it, and neither I do now, but as you see,
> you also sometimes agree that going 100% to the spec is not worth it.
> 
> 
> I hope you understand me.

Yep.

And rereading what I wrote...  I didn't intend to imply that you personally aren't
operating in "good faith" or whatever is the right terminology.  What I was trying
to explain is why I sometimes speak in absolutes.  When there is a bug/regression
and KVM is clearly violating spec, it's not a matter of opinion; KVM is broken and
needs to be fixed.

Of course, one could argue that that's an opinion in and of itself...