search for: get_rng_seed

Il 27/08/2014 01:58, Andy Lutomirski ha scritto: > hpa pointed out that the ABI that I chose (an MSR from the KVM range > and a KVM cpuid bit) is unnecessarily KVM-specific. It would be nice > to allocate an MSR that everyone involved can agree on and, rather > than relying on a cpuid bit, just have the guest probe for the MSR. > > This leads to a few questions: > > 1.

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 04:58:34PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > hpa pointed out that the ABI that I chose (an MSR from the KVM range > and a KVM cpuid bit) is unnecessarily KVM-specific. It would be nice > to allocate an MSR that everyone involved can agree on and, rather > than relying on a cpuid bit, just have the guest probe for the MSR. > CPUID part allows feature to be

Il 28/08/2014 18:22, Andy Lutomirski ha scritto: > Is there a non-cpuid interface between QEMU and KVM for this? No. > AFAICT, even turning off cpuid bits for things like async pf doesn't > actually disable the MSRs (which is arguably an attack surface issue). No, it doesn't. You cannot disable instructions even if you hide CPUID bits, so KVM just extends this to MSRs (both

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini at redhat.com> wrote: > Il 28/08/2014 18:22, Andy Lutomirski ha scritto: >> Is there a non-cpuid interface between QEMU and KVM for this? > > No. Hmm. Then, assuming that someone manages to allocate a cross-hypervisor MSR number for this, what am I supposed to do in the KVM code? Just make it available

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini at redhat.com> wrote: > Il 28/08/2014 18:22, Andy Lutomirski ha scritto: >> Is there a non-cpuid interface between QEMU and KVM for this? > > No. Hmm. Then, assuming that someone manages to allocate a cross-hypervisor MSR number for this, what am I supposed to do in the KVM code? Just make it available

On Aug 28, 2014 7:17 AM, "Gleb Natapov" <gleb at kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 04:58:34PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > hpa pointed out that the ABI that I chose (an MSR from the KVM range > > and a KVM cpuid bit) is unnecessarily KVM-specific. It would be nice > > to allocate an MSR that everyone involved can agree on and, rather >

On Aug 28, 2014 7:17 AM, "Gleb Natapov" <gleb at kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 04:58:34PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > hpa pointed out that the ABI that I chose (an MSR from the KVM range > > and a KVM cpuid bit) is unnecessarily KVM-specific. It would be nice > > to allocate an MSR that everyone involved can agree on and, rather >

hpa pointed out that the ABI that I chose (an MSR from the KVM range and a KVM cpuid bit) is unnecessarily KVM-specific. It would be nice to allocate an MSR that everyone involved can agree on and, rather than relying on a cpuid bit, just have the guest probe for the MSR. This leads to a few questions: 1. How do we allocate an MSR? (For background, this would be an MSR that either returns 64

hpa pointed out that the ABI that I chose (an MSR from the KVM range and a KVM cpuid bit) is unnecessarily KVM-specific. It would be nice to allocate an MSR that everyone involved can agree on and, rather than relying on a cpuid bit, just have the guest probe for the MSR. This leads to a few questions: 1. How do we allocate an MSR? (For background, this would be an MSR that either returns 64