linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: selftests: Test forced instruction emulation in dirty log test (x86 only)

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: <Zc5wTHuphbg3peZ9@linux.dev>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 20:13:00 +0000
From: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
	Pasha Tatashin <tatashin@...gle.com>,
	Michael Krebs <mkrebs@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: selftests: Test forced instruction emulation in
 dirty log test (x86 only)

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:50:20AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Yeah, the funky flow I concocted was done purely to have the "no emulation" path
> fall through to the common "*mem = val".  I don't have a strong preference, I
> mentally flipped a coin on doing that versus what you suggested, and apparently
> chose poorly :-)

Oh, I could definitely tell this was intentional :) But really if folks
are going to add more flavors of emulated instructions to the x86
implementation (which they should) then it might make sense to just have
an x86-specific function.

But again, it's selftests, who cares! /s

-- 
Thanks,
Oliver