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, 12 Dec 2022 08:10:14 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86/tdx: Use ReportFatalError to report missing
 SEPT_VE_DISABLE

On 12/9/22 12:51, Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy wrote:
>>>> +	while (1) {
>>>> +		__tdx_hypercall(&args, 0);
>>>> +	}
>>> Instead of an infinite loop, I'm wondering if the guest should panic after
>>> retrying for few times.
>> Hm. What difference would it make?
> IIUC, the goal of this patch is to report the fatal error to VMM and panic.
> But, if VMM does not terminate the guest as we expect, rather than trying 
> continuously, isn't it better to panic ourselves? That way the behavior
> will be similar to what we have currently.

What does "panic ourselves" mean exactly?  What is the current behavior
which that would match?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists