linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kvm/x86: reserve bit KVM_HINTS_PHYS_ADDRESS_SIZE_DATA

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: <20220921134246.xibospqoktp4wjie@sirius.home.kraxel.org>
Date:   Wed, 21 Sep 2022 15:42:46 +0200
From:   Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm/x86: reserve bit
 KVM_HINTS_PHYS_ADDRESS_SIZE_DATA_VALID

On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 07:02:24AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 02:52:36PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2022, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > > -#define KVM_HINTS_REALTIME      0
> > > +#define KVM_HINTS_REALTIME                      0
> > > +#define KVM_HINTS_PHYS_ADDRESS_SIZE_DATA_VALID  1
> > 
> > Why does KVM need to get involved?  This is purely a userspace problem.
> 
> It doesn't.  I only need reserve a hints bit, and the canonical source
> for that happens to live in the kernel.  That's why this patch doesn't
> touch any actual code ;)
> 
> > E.g. why not use QEMU's fw_cfg to communicate this information to the
> > guest?
> 
> That is indeed the other obvious way to implement this.  Given this
> information will be needed in code paths which already do CPUID queries
> using CPUID to transport that information looked like the better option
> to me.

I'd like to move forward with this.

So, any comment further comments and opinions?
Is it ok to grab a hints bit given the explanation above?
Or should I go for the fw_cfg approach?

thanks & take care,
  Gerd