[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4593C702.4000604@qumranet.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:30:42 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: kvm-devel <kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [patch, try#2] kvm: fix GFP_KERNEL allocation in atomic section
in kvm_dev_ioctl_create_vcpu()
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> I've got a security related question as well: vcpu_load() sets up a
> physical CPU's VM registers/state, and vcpu_put() drops that. But
> vcpu_put() only does a put_cpu() call - it does not tear down any VM
> state that has been loaded into the CPU. Is it guaranteed that (hostile)
> user-space cannot use that VM state in any unauthorized way? The state
> is still loaded while arbitrary tasks execute on the CPU. The next
> vcpu_load() will then override it, but the state lingers around forever.
>
> The new x86 VM instructions: vmclear, vmlaunch, vmresume, vmptrld,
> vmread, vmwrite, vmxoff, vmxon are all privileged so i guess it should
> be mostly safe - i'm just wondering whether you thought about this
> attack angle.
>
Yes. Userspace cannot snoop on a VM state.
> ultimately we want to integrate VM state management into the scheduler
> and the context-switch lowlevel arch code, but right now CPU state
> management is done by the KVM 'driver' and there's nothing that isolates
> other tasks from possible side-effects of a loaded VMX/SVN state.
>
AFAICS in vmx root mode the vm state only affects vmx instructions; SVM
has no architecturally hidden state.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists