linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] KVM: VMX: Allow direct access to MSR_IA32_SPEC

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]

Date:   Wed, 31 Jan 2018 16:00:43 -0500
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Cc:     KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.com>,
        KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.de>,
        kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
        Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] KVM: VMX: Allow direct access to
 MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL

On 31/01/2018 15:54, Jim Mattson wrote:
> You seem to be making the assumption that there is one L2. What if
> there are 100 L2s, and only one has write-access to IA32_SPEC_CTRL? Or
> what if there once was such an L2, but it's been gone for months? The
> current mechanism penalizes *all* L2s if any L2, ever, has
> write-access to IA32_SPEC_CTRL.

Yes, but how would moving the field into struct loaded_vmcs do anything?
 Only vmon/vmoff would change anything in vmx->nested.vmcs02.

Even then, L1 vmexits will also be penalized because L1 has probably
done an RDMSR/WRMSR on L2->L1 vmexit.  So I don't think it's an issue?

Paolo