Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 7 Apr 2020 16:55:56 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, tglx@linutronix.de,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org,
        sean.j.christopherson@intel.com, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
        hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, kenny@panix.com, jeyu@kernel.org,
        rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk, fenghua.yu@intel.com,
        xiaoyao.li@intel.com, nadav.amit@gmail.com, thellstrom@vmware.com,
        tony.luck@intel.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, jannh@google.com,
        keescook@chromium.org, David.Laight@aculab.com,
        dcovelli@vmware.com, mhiramat@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86,module: Detect VMX vs SLD conflicts
Message-ID: <20200407145556.GA895937@kroah.com>
References: <20200407110236.930134290@infradead.org>
 <20200407111007.352324393@infradead.org>
 <20200407143543.GB876345@kroah.com>
 <527b5c72-96cb-a6cc-5301-449d86015ec9@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <527b5c72-96cb-a6cc-5301-449d86015ec9@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 04:44:57PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/04/20 16:35, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 01:02:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> It turns out that with Split-Lock-Detect enabled (default) any VMX
> >> hypervisor needs at least a little modification in order to not blindly
> >> inject the #AC into the guest without the guest being ready for it.
> >>
> >> Since there is no telling which module implements a hypervisor, scan
> >> all out-of-tree modules' text and look for VMX instructions and refuse
> >> to load it when SLD is enabled (default) and the module isn't marked
> >> 'sld_safe'.
> >>
> >> Hypervisors, which have been modified and are known to work correctly,
> >> can add:
> >>
> >>   MODULE_INFO(sld_safe, "Y");
> >>
> >> to explicitly tell the module loader they're good.
> > 
> > What's to keep any out-of-tree module from adding this same module info
> > "flag" and just lie about it?  Isn't that what you are trying to catch
> > here, or is it a case of, "if you lie, your code will break" as well?
> 
> It's the latter.  Basically it's doing _the users_ of out-of-tree
> modules a favor by avoiding crashes of their virtual machines;
> developers need to fix them anyway.

Ok, seems kind of a heavy hammer, but oh well...

thanks for the explanation.

greg k-h