linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Enable Shadow Stack Virtualization for SVM

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: <aMSkp7e7IryG2ZAj@google.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 15:54:31 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: John Allen <john.allen@....com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, 
	pbonzini@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...el.com, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, 
	mlevitsk@...hat.com, weijiang.yang@...el.com, chao.gao@...el.com, 
	bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com, 
	tglx@...utronix.de, thomas.lendacky@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Enable Shadow Stack Virtualization for SVM

On Mon, Sep 08, 2025, John Allen wrote:
> This series adds support for shadow stack in SVM guests
                  ^
                  |
                some

I mean, who cares about nested, right?

Sorry for being snippy, but I am more than a bit peeved that we're effectively
on revision 6 of this series, and apparently no one has thought to do even basic
tested of nested SVM.  And I'm even more grumpy that writing tests continues to
be low priority in general, which is especially concerning for such a large,
complex feature.

Adding support for nested was easy enough (famous last words), but I really wish
I could get back the ~hour I spent figuring out what was missing...