linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 03/14] x86/apic: Populate .read()/.write() callbacks of Secure AVIC driver

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <42e356ee-5f8e-40e9-8907-d41c5fe162f5@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 21:44:28 +0530
From: Neeraj Upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
 dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, Thomas.Lendacky@....com, nikunj@....com,
 Santosh.Shukla@....com, Vasant.Hegde@....com, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com,
 David.Kaplan@....com, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, peterz@...radead.org,
 seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 03/14] x86/apic: Populate .read()/.write() callbacks of
 Secure AVIC driver



On 11/8/2024 4:18 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 02:29:03PM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
>> From the APIC architecture details in APM and SDM, I see these gaps are reserved
> 
> What I actually meant here is whether SAVIC enablement is going to keep adding
> more and more entries here so that it becomes practically *all* possible, each
> spelled out explicitly.
> 

Ah ok. My bad, I completely misread it and went too far.

> But I went further in your patchset and it doesn't look like it so meh, ok.
> 

Yes, the offsets layout I described was with respect to the complete series. Thanks
for checking it.

>> I would ask, does above reasoning convince you with the current switch-case layout
>> or you want it to be range-based?
> 
> That's fine, let's keep them like they are now and we can always revisit if
> the list grows too ugly.
> 

Sure, thanks!


- Neeraj