linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] kvm: Add KVM_GET_EMULATED

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]

Message-ID: <20130926192059.GD10924@otherpad.lan.raisama.net>
Date:	Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:20:59 -0300
From:	Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@...hat.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Andre Przywara <andre@...rep.de>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
	libvir-list@...hat.com, Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] kvm: Add KVM_GET_EMULATED_CPUID

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 08:55:24PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:19:15AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > Then we may have a problem: some CPU models already have "movbe"
> > included (e.g. Haswell), and patch 6/6 will make "-cpu Haswell" get
> > movbe enabled even if it is being emulated.
> 
> Huh? HSW has MOVBE so we won't #UD on it and MOVBE will get executed in
> hardware when executing the guest. IOW, we'll never get to the emulation
> path of piggybacking on the #UD.
> 
> > So if we really want to avoid enabling emulated features by mistake,
> > we may need a new CPU flag in addition to "enforce" to tell QEMU that
> > it is OK to enable emulated features (maybe "-cpu ...,emulate"?).
> 
> EMULATED_CPUID are off by default and only if you request them
> specifically, they get enabled.

Please point me to the code that does this, because I don't see it on
patch 6/6.

> If you start with "-cpu Haswell", MOVBE
> will be already set in the host CPUID.
> 
> Or am I missing something?

In the Haswell example, it is unlikely but possible in theory: you would
need a CPU that supported all features from Haswell except movbe. But
what will happen if you are using "-cpu n270,enforce" on a SandyBridge
host?

Also, we don't know anything about future CPUs or future features that
will end up on EMULATED_CPUID. The current code doesn't have anything to
differentiate features that were already included in the CPU definition
and ones explicitly enabled in the command-line (and I would like to
keep it that way).

And just because a feature was explicitly enabled in the command-line,
that doesn't mean the user believe it is acceptable to get it running in
emulated mode. That's why I propose a new "emulate" flag, to allow
features to be enabled in emulated mode.

> 
> > But my question still stands: suppose we had x2apic emulation
> > implemented but for some reason it was painfully slow, we wouldn't
> > want to enable it by mistake. In this case, it would end up on
> > EMULATED_CPUID and not on SUPPORTED_CPUID, right?
> 
> IMHO we want to enable emulation only when explicitly requested...
> regardless of the emulation performance.

Well, x2apic is emulated by KVM, and it is on SUPPORTED_CPUID. Ditto for
tsc-deadline. Or are you talking specifically about instruction
emulation?

-- 
Eduardo
--
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/