linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/23] Extend test coverage for nested 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <vgbuzefu4w5mc7cvqv4xzgqycv4qa46s6wolhau4nc65fgsajx@tzbsrlhu4ltr>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:30:35 +0000
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@...ux.dev>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>, 
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/23] Extend test coverage for nested SVM

On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 04:24:20PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2025, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 03:50:10PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > >   KVM: selftests: Extend vmx_tsc_adjust_test to cover SVM
> > >   KVM: selftests: Extend nested_invalid_cr3_test to cover SVM
> > >   KVM: selftests: Move nested invalid CR3 check to its own test
> > >   KVM: selftests: Extend vmx_nested_tsc_scaling_test to cover SVM
> > >   KVM: selftests: Extend vmx_close_while_nested_test to cover SVM
> > 
> > Not sure I understand how you to proceed. Do you want me to respin these
> > patches separately (as series A), on top of kvm-x86/next, and then
> > respin the rest of the series separately (as series B, with your struct
> > kvm_mmu suggestion)?
> 
> I'm going to apply a subset "soon", hopefully they'll show up in kvm-x86/next
> tomorrow.  I think it's patches 3-9?

I think 10 and 11 should also be good to go, unless you have reason to
think otherwise.

> 
> > As for set_nested_state, if you plan to pickup Jim's EFER fixes I can
> > just include it as-is in series (A). If not, I can include
> > generalization of the test, and send covering Jim's fix separately.
> 
> We're likely going to need a v3 of Jim's GIF series no matter what, so let's plan
> on bundling patches 1-2 with v3 of that series.
> 
> That leaves the paging patches.  Unless you're super duper speedy, I should get
> patches 3-9 and Jim's LA57 changes+test pushed to kvm-x86 before you're ready to
> post the next version of those patches.
> 
> So:
>   Fold 1-2 into Jim's GIF series.
>   Do nothing for 3-9.
>   Spin a new version of 10+ (the paging patches) after kvm-x86/next is refreshed

Makes sense, I will coordinate with Jim. Thanks!