Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        Arjan van de Veen <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@natalenko.name>,
        Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>,
        "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@igalia.com>,
        Piotr Gorski <lucjan.lucjanov@gmail.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
        Usama Arif <usama.arif@bytedance.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>,
        linux-csky@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
        Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Sabin Rapan <sabrapan@amazon.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 22/37] arm64: smp: Switch to hotplug core state
 synchronization
In-Reply-To: <ZEjZ3pHjQWn4drs8@FVFF77S0Q05N>
References: <20230414225551.858160935@linutronix.de>
 <20230414232310.569498144@linutronix.de> <ZD1q3TF2ixVD1f2M@FVFF77S0Q05N>
 <87ttx3zqof.ffs@tglx> <ZEjZ3pHjQWn4drs8@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Date:   Wed, 26 Apr 2023 10:15:48 +0200
Message-ID: <87ildjys7f.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 26 2023 at 08:59, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 09:51:12PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> If not then it's just yet another way of DoS which is an "acceptable"
>> attack as it only affects availability but not confidentiality.
>
> Sure.
>
> My thinking is that this is an attack against the *integrity* of the guest
> (since the vCPU that gets unpasued may write to memory), and so it's
> potentially more than just a DoS.
>
> I only mention this because I'd like to account for that on arm64, and if other
> architectures also wanted to handle that it might make sense to have some
> common infrastructure to track whether CPUs are potentially still within the
> kernel.

Fair enough.