linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] KVM: x86: SVM changes for 6.9

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:35:39 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] KVM: x86: SVM changes for 6.9

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 8:24 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> Please pull a single series that allows KVM to play nice with systems that have
> all ASIDs binned to SEV-ES+ guests, which makes SEV unusuable despite being
> enabled.

Ok, will do so tomorrow.

> This is the main source of conflicts between kvm/next and your "allow
> customizing VMSA features".  guest_memfd_fixes also has a minor conflict in
> kvm_is_vm_type_supported(), but you should already have that pull request for
> 6.8[1].
>
> There is one more trivial conflict in my "misc" branch, in
> kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_set_debugregs(), but I am going to hold off one sending a
> pull request for that branch until next week.  The main reason is because I
> screwed up and forgot to push a pile of commits from my local tree to kvm-x86,
> and sending a pull request for ~3 commits, and then another for the remaining
> 16 or so commits seemed rather silly.  The other reason is that I am hoping we
> can avoid that conflict entirely, by adding a common choke point in
> kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl()[2].

Yes, I'll do that. I have to respin anyway to get the SEV test
infrastructure. I'll keep posting against kvm-x86/next, though.

Paolo