linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 0/9] Linear Address Masking (LAM) KVM Enabling

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: <e4aa03cb-0f80-bd5f-f69e-39b636476f00@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Aug 2023 12:31:26 +0800
From:   Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        pbonzini@...hat.com, chao.gao@...el.com, kai.huang@...el.com,
        David.Laight@...lab.com, robert.hu@...ux.intel.com,
        guang.zeng@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/9] Linear Address Masking (LAM) KVM Enabling



On 8/17/2023 5:17 PM, Binbin Wu wrote:
>
>
> On 8/17/2023 6:25 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2023, Binbin Wu wrote:
>>> Binbin Wu (7):
>>>    KVM: x86/mmu: Use GENMASK_ULL() to define __PT_BASE_ADDR_MASK
>>>    KVM: x86: Add & use kvm_vcpu_is_legal_cr3() to check CR3's legality
>>>    KVM: x86: Use KVM-governed feature framework to track "LAM enabled"
>>>    KVM: x86: Virtualize CR3.LAM_{U48,U57}
>>>    KVM: x86: Introduce get_untagged_addr() in kvm_x86_ops and call 
>>> it in
>>>      emulator
>>>    KVM: VMX: Implement and wire get_untagged_addr() for LAM
>>>    KVM: x86: Untag address for vmexit handlers when LAM applicable
>>>
>>> Robert Hoo (2):
>>>    KVM: x86: Virtualize CR4.LAM_SUP
>>>    KVM: x86: Expose LAM feature to userspace VMM
>> Looks good, just needs a bit of re-organination.  Same goes for the 
>> LASS series.
>>
>> For the next version, can you (or Zeng) send a single series for LAM 
>> and LASS?
>> They're both pretty much ready to go, i.e. I don't expect one to hold 
>> up the other
>> at this point, and posting a single series will reduce the 
>> probability of me
>> screwing up a conflict resolution or missing a dependency when applying.
>>
Hi Sean,
Do you still prefer a single series for LAM and LASS  for the next 
version when we don't need to rush for v6.6?

>> Lastly, a question: is there a pressing need to get LAM/LASS support 
>> merged _now_?
>> E.g. are there are there any publicly available CPUs that support LAM 
>> and/or LASS?
> AFAIK, there is no publicly available CPU supporting LAM and LASS yet.
>
>>
>> If not, I'll wait until v6.7 to grab these, e.g. so that you don't 
>> have to rush
>> madly to turn around the next version, and so that I'm not trying to 
>> squeeze too
>> much stuff in just before the merge window.
>