linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/speculation: Support "Enhanced IBRS" on future CPUs

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:   Tue, 13 Feb 2018 11:41:35 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com,
        dave.hansen@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/speculation: Support "Enhanced IBRS" on future
 CPUs

On 13/02/2018 11:36, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>> - if the VM has IBRS_ALL, pass through the MSR when it is zero and
>>> intercept writes when it is one (no writes should happen)
>>>  
>>> - if the VM doesn't have IBRS_ALL, do as we are doing now, independent
>>> of what the host spectre_v2_ibrs_all() setting is.
>> We end up having to turn IBRS on again on vmexit then, taking care that
>> no conditional branch can go round it. So that becomes an
>> *unconditional* wrmsr or lfence in the vmexit path. We really don't
>> want that.
>
> Note that being able to keep it simple in KVM was basically what made
> the difference between me tolerating IBRS_ALL as Intel currently define
> it, and throwing my toys out of the pram (as I had done in the first
> iterations of this patch).

You have my vote. :)  Really, IBRS_ALL makes no sense and it would be
nice to know _why_ Intel is pushing something that makes no sense.

Paolo