linux-kernel - Re: [PULL 00/19] KVM: Add AMD Secure Nested Paging (SEV-SNP) Hypervisor Support

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: Sun, 12 May 2024 10:17:06 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, jroedel@...e.de, 
	thomas.lendacky@....com, vkuznets@...hat.com, pgonda@...gle.com, 
	rientjes@...gle.com, tobin@....com, bp@...en8.de, vbabka@...e.cz, 
	alpergun@...gle.com, ashish.kalra@....com, nikunj.dadhania@....com, 
	pankaj.gupta@....com, liam.merwick@...cle.com, papaluri@....com
Subject: Re: [PULL 00/19] KVM: Add AMD Secure Nested Paging (SEV-SNP)
 Hypervisor Support

On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 9:14 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 11:17 PM Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Paolo,
> >
> > This pull request contains v15 of the KVM SNP support patchset[1] along
> > with fixes and feedback from you and Sean regarding PSC request processing,
> > fast_page_fault() handling for SNP/TDX, and avoiding uncessary
> > PSMASH/zapping for KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT events. It's also been rebased
> > on top of kvm/queue (commit 1451476151e0), and re-tested with/without
> > 2MB gmem pages enabled.
>
> Pulled into kvm-coco-queue, thanks (and sorry for the sev_complete_psc
> mess up - it seemed too good to be true that the PSC changes were all
> fine...).

.. and there was a missing signoff in "KVM: SVM: Add module parameter
to enable SEV-SNP" so I ended up not using the pull request. But it
was still good to have it because it made it simpler to double check
what you tested vs. what I applied.

Also I have already received the full set of pull requests for
submaintainers, so I put it in kvm/next.  It's not impossible that it
ends up in the 6.10 merge window, so I might as well give it a week or
two in linux-next.

Paolo


Paolo