linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 0/4] KVM: x86: Make bus clock frequency for vAPIC timer configurable

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: <6fae9b07de98d7f56b903031be4490490042ff90.camel@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 17:09:18 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "jmattson@...gle.com" <jmattson@...gle.com>, "Gao, Chao"
	<chao.gao@...el.com>, "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
	"vkuznets@...hat.com" <vkuznets@...hat.com>, "Annapurve, Vishal"
	<vannapurve@...gle.com>, "Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>, "Li,
 Xiaoyao" <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>, "Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
	"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>, "mlevitsk@...hat.com"
	<mlevitsk@...hat.com>, "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
CC: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/4] KVM: x86: Make bus clock frequency for vAPIC timer
 configurable

On Thu, 2024-03-21 at 09:37 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> 
> Summary
> -------
> Add KVM_CAP_X86_APIC_BUS_FREQUENCY capability to configure the APIC
> bus clock frequency for APIC timer emulation.
> Allow KVM_ENABLE_CAPABILITY(KVM_CAP_X86_APIC_BUS_FREQUENCY) to set the
> frequency in nanoseconds. When using this capability, the user space
> VMM should configure CPUID leaf 0x15 to advertise the frequency.

Looks good to me and...
Tested-by: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>

The only thing missing is actually integrating it into TDX qemu patches and
testing the resulting TD. I think we are making a fair assumption that the
problem should be resolved based on the analysis, but we have not actually
tested that part. Is that right? What do you think?