linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/21] KVM: VMX: Introduce test mode related to EPT violation VE

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: <6d0f2392-bc93-445d-9169-65221fb55329@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:35:41 +1300
From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<kvm@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <seanjc@...gle.com>, <michael.roth@....com>, <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
	<thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/21] KVM: VMX: Introduce test mode related to EPT
 violation VE



On 28/02/2024 12:20 pm, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
> 
> To support TDX, KVM is enhanced to operate with #VE.  For TDX, KVM uses the
> suppress #VE bit in EPT entries selectively, in order to be able to trap
> non-present conditions.  However, #VE isn't used for VMX and it's a bug
> if it happens.  To be defensive and test that VMX case isn't broken
> introduce an option ept_violation_ve_test and when it's set, BUG the vm.

I am wondering from HW's point of view, is it OK for the kernel to 
explicitly send #VE IPI, in which case, IIUC, the guest can legally get 
the #VE w/o being a TDX guest?