linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/58] KVM: Arm SMMUv3 driver for pKVM

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: <20250129135053.GB2120662@ziepe.ca>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2025 09:50:53 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@...gle.com>
Cc: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
	"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
	"kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev" <kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
	"maz@...nel.org" <maz@...nel.org>,
	"oliver.upton@...ux.dev" <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
	"joey.gouly@....com" <joey.gouly@....com>,
	"suzuki.poulose@....com" <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
	"yuzenghui@...wei.com" <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
	"robdclark@...il.com" <robdclark@...il.com>,
	"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
	"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
	"jean-philippe@...aro.org" <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
	"nicolinc@...dia.com" <nicolinc@...dia.com>,
	"vdonnefort@...gle.com" <vdonnefort@...gle.com>,
	"qperret@...gle.com" <qperret@...gle.com>,
	"tabba@...gle.com" <tabba@...gle.com>,
	"danielmentz@...gle.com" <danielmentz@...gle.com>,
	"tzukui@...gle.com" <tzukui@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/58] KVM: Arm SMMUv3 driver for pKVM

On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 12:21:01PM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote:
> levels) and can’t be separated from the kernel as that defeats the
> point of KVM, that means that all hypercalls have to be stable ABI,
> same for the shared data, shared structs, types...

Sorry, just trying to understand this sentance, today pkvm has no
stable ABI right? That is the whole point of building it into the
kernel?

Things like the CC world are creating stable ABIs for their pkvm like
environments because they are not built into the kernel? And thus they
take the pain of that?

Jason