| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <jpgioq2lrcg.fsf@nelium.bos.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 09:55:27 -0400
From: Bandan Das <bsd@...hat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Check for host supported fields in shadow vmcs
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> writes:
> Il 19/04/2014 19:34, Bandan Das ha scritto:
>>
>> We track shadow vmcs fields through two static lists,
>> one for read only fields and another for r/w. However, with
>> addition of new vmcs fields, not all fields may be supported on
>> all hosts. If so, copy_vmcs12_to_shadow() trying to vmwrite on older
>> hosts will result in a vmwrite error. For example, commit
>> 36be0b9deb23161 introduced GUEST_BNDCFGS, which is not supported
>> for all processors. Create new lists based out of intersection of
>> static lists and host support and use them for tracking
>> shadow fields instead
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bandan Das <bsd@...hat.com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 98 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>> 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>> index 7bed3e3..ffc2232 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>> @@ -502,7 +502,10 @@ static inline struct vcpu_vmx *to_vmx(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> #define FIELD64(number, name) [number] = VMCS12_OFFSET(name), \
>> [number##_HIGH] = VMCS12_OFFSET(name)+4
>>
>> -
>> +/*
>> + * Do not use the two lists below directly
>> + * Use vmcs_shadow_fields instead
>> + */
>> static const unsigned long shadow_read_only_fields[] = {
>> /*
>> * We do NOT shadow fields that are modified when L0
>> @@ -526,8 +529,6 @@ static const unsigned long shadow_read_only_fields[] = {
>> GUEST_LINEAR_ADDRESS,
>> GUEST_PHYSICAL_ADDRESS
>> };
>> -static const int max_shadow_read_only_fields =
>> - ARRAY_SIZE(shadow_read_only_fields);
>>
>> static const unsigned long shadow_read_write_fields[] = {
>> GUEST_RIP,
>> @@ -558,8 +559,18 @@ static const unsigned long shadow_read_write_fields[] = {
>> HOST_FS_SELECTOR,
>> HOST_GS_SELECTOR
>> };
>> -static const int max_shadow_read_write_fields =
>> - ARRAY_SIZE(shadow_read_write_fields);
>
> Can we just remove the "const" here, and compress the arrays down
> similar to what kvm_init_msr_list does.
Yep, agreed. That makes sense. Thanks for the pointer.
>> +/* If new shadow fields are added, these should be modified appropriately */
>> +#define VMCS_MAX_RO_FIELDS 10
>> +#define VMCS_MAX_RW_FIELDS 30
>> +
>> +struct vmcs_shadow_fields_data {
>> + int shadow_ro_fields_len;
>> + int shadow_rw_fields_len;
>> + unsigned long shadow_read_only_fields[VMCS_MAX_RO_FIELDS];
>> + unsigned long shadow_read_write_fields[VMCS_MAX_RW_FIELDS];
>> +};
>> +static struct vmcs_shadow_fields_data vmcs_shadow_fields;
>>
>> static const unsigned short vmcs_field_to_offset_table[] = {
>> FIELD(VIRTUAL_PROCESSOR_ID, virtual_processor_id),
>> @@ -3027,6 +3038,56 @@ static __init int alloc_kvm_area(void)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static void cleanup_vmcs_shadow_fields(void)
>> +{
>> + memset(&vmcs_shadow_fields, 0,
>> + sizeof(struct vmcs_shadow_fields_data));
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void init_vmcs_shadow_fields(void)
>> +{
>> + struct vmcs_shadow_fields_data *vmcs_ptr = &vmcs_shadow_fields;
>> + int max_shadow_read_write_fields = ARRAY_SIZE(shadow_read_write_fields);
>> + int max_shadow_read_only_fields = ARRAY_SIZE(shadow_read_only_fields);
>> + int i, j;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0, j = 0; i < max_shadow_read_write_fields; i++) {
>> + if (i >= VMCS_MAX_RW_FIELDS) {
>> + WARN(1, "Shadow RW fields index out of bounds\n");
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + if ((shadow_read_write_fields[i] == GUEST_BNDCFGS) &&
>> + !vmx_mpx_supported())
>> + continue;
>
> Please code this as a "switch" statement for easier future
> extensibility. Again, this would be similar to kvm_init_msr_list.
Ok.
> How did you find this? Do you have access to a machine with shadow
> VMCS? Is that Ivy Bridge Xeon E5 or does some lower-end Haswell have
> it?
Yeah, it seems the DIY grade Haswells do indeed have shadow vmcs support.
The system I am using has i7-4770 and I found this while testing my Xen
as L1 changes on top of 3.15-rc1.
> Paolo
>
>> + vmcs_ptr->shadow_read_write_fields[j++] =
>> + shadow_read_write_fields[i];
>> + vmcs_ptr->shadow_rw_fields_len++;
>> + }
>> +
>> + for (i = 0, j = 0; i < max_shadow_read_only_fields; i++) {
>> + if (i >= VMCS_MAX_RO_FIELDS) {
>> + WARN(1, "Shadow RO fields index out of bounds\n");
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + vmcs_ptr->shadow_read_only_fields[j++] =
>> + shadow_read_only_fields[i];
>> + vmcs_ptr->shadow_ro_fields_len++;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* shadowed read/write fields */
>> + for (i = 0; i < vmcs_ptr->shadow_rw_fields_len; i++) {
>> + clear_bit(vmcs_ptr->shadow_read_write_fields[i],
>> + vmx_vmwrite_bitmap);
>> + clear_bit(vmcs_ptr->shadow_read_write_fields[i],
>> + vmx_vmread_bitmap);
>> + }
>> + /* shadowed read only fields */
>> + for (i = 0; i < vmcs_ptr->shadow_ro_fields_len; i++)
>> + clear_bit(vmcs_ptr->shadow_read_only_fields[i],
>> + vmx_vmread_bitmap);
>> +
>> +}
>> +
>> static __init int hardware_setup(void)
>> {
>> if (setup_vmcs_config(&vmcs_config) < 0)
>> @@ -3039,6 +3100,8 @@ static __init int hardware_setup(void)
>> enable_vpid = 0;
>> if (!cpu_has_vmx_shadow_vmcs())
>> enable_shadow_vmcs = 0;
>> + if (enable_shadow_vmcs)
>> + init_vmcs_shadow_fields();
>>
>> if (!cpu_has_vmx_ept() ||
>> !cpu_has_vmx_ept_4levels()) {
>> @@ -3084,6 +3147,8 @@ static __init int hardware_setup(void)
>>
>> static __exit void hardware_unsetup(void)
>> {
>> + if (enable_shadow_vmcs)
>> + cleanup_vmcs_shadow_fields();
>> free_kvm_area();
>> }
>>
>> @@ -6159,8 +6224,9 @@ static void copy_shadow_to_vmcs12(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)
>> unsigned long field;
>> u64 field_value;
>> struct vmcs *shadow_vmcs = vmx->nested.current_shadow_vmcs;
>> - const unsigned long *fields = shadow_read_write_fields;
>> - const int num_fields = max_shadow_read_write_fields;
>> + const unsigned long *fields =
>> + vmcs_shadow_fields.shadow_read_write_fields;
>> + const int num_fields = vmcs_shadow_fields.shadow_rw_fields_len;
>>
>> vmcs_load(shadow_vmcs);
>>
>> @@ -6189,13 +6255,15 @@ static void copy_shadow_to_vmcs12(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)
>>
>> static void copy_vmcs12_to_shadow(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)
>> {
>> + struct vmcs_shadow_fields_data *ptr = &vmcs_shadow_fields;
>> +
>> const unsigned long *fields[] = {
>> - shadow_read_write_fields,
>> - shadow_read_only_fields
>> + ptr->shadow_read_write_fields,
>> + ptr->shadow_read_only_fields
>> };
>> const int max_fields[] = {
>> - max_shadow_read_write_fields,
>> - max_shadow_read_only_fields
>> + ptr->shadow_rw_fields_len,
>> + ptr->shadow_ro_fields_len
>> };
>> int i, q;
>> unsigned long field;
>> @@ -8817,14 +8885,6 @@ static int __init vmx_init(void)
>>
>> memset(vmx_vmread_bitmap, 0xff, PAGE_SIZE);
>> memset(vmx_vmwrite_bitmap, 0xff, PAGE_SIZE);
>> - /* shadowed read/write fields */
>> - for (i = 0; i < max_shadow_read_write_fields; i++) {
>> - clear_bit(shadow_read_write_fields[i], vmx_vmwrite_bitmap);
>> - clear_bit(shadow_read_write_fields[i], vmx_vmread_bitmap);
>> - }
>> - /* shadowed read only fields */
>> - for (i = 0; i < max_shadow_read_only_fields; i++)
>> - clear_bit(shadow_read_only_fields[i], vmx_vmread_bitmap);
>>
>> /*
>> * Allow direct access to the PC debug port (it is often used for I/O
>>
--
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