linux-kernel - Re: Re: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Check irqchip mode before create PIT

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: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 19:11:40 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Brilliant Hanabi <moehanabichan@...il.com>, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, 
	hpa@...or.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Check irqchip mode before create PIT

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 12:59 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...glecom> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024, Brilliant Hanabi wrote:
> > Thanks for your review. In my opinion, it is better to avoid potential bugs
> > which is difficult to detect, as long as you can return errors to let
> > developers know about them in advance, although the kernel is not to blame
> > for this bug.
>
> Oh, I completely agree that explict errors are far better.  My only concern is
> that there's a teeny tiny chance that rejecting an ioctl() that used to work
> could break userspace.
>
> Go ahead and send v2.  I'll get Paolo's thoughts on whether or not this is likely
> to break userspace and we can go from there.

I share the same worry but I agree it's quite unlikely.  Let's just do
it, and if someone complains we'll revert it.

Paolo