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:	Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:40:33 +0200
From:	Paolo Bonzini <>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/2] perf ignore LBR and extra_regs

Il 14/07/2014 14:09, Peter Zijlstra ha scritto:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 01:55:03PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 10/07/2014 12:59, ha scritto:
>>> From: Kan Liang <>
>>> x86, perf: Protect LBR and extra_regs against KVM lying
>>> With -cpu host, KVM reports LBR and extra_regs support, if the host has support.
>>> When the guest perf driver tries to access LBR or extra_regs MSR,
>>> it #GPs all MSR accesses,since KVM doesn't handle LBR and extra_regs support.
>>> So check the related MSRs access right once at initialization time to avoid the error access at runtime.
>>> For reproducing the issue, please build the kernel with CONFIG_KVM_INTEL = y (for host kernel).
>>> And CONFIG_PARAVIRT = n and CONFIG_KVM_GUEST = n (for guest kernel).
>> I'm not sure this is a useful patch.
>> This is #GP'ing just because of a limitation in the PMU; just compile the
>> kernel with CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> How's that going to help? If you run kvm -host the VM is lying through
> its teeth is the kernel is going to assume all those MSRs present,
> PARAVIRT isn't going to help with this.
>> , or split the "rdmsr is always rdmsr_safe"
>> behavior out of CONFIG_PARAVIRT and into a new Kconfig symbol.
> That's not useful either, because non of these code-paths are going to
> check the return value.

Hmmm, I thought rdmsr_safe was going to return zero, but it just returns 
whatever happened to be in edx:eax which maybe should also be fixed.

Kan Liang, what happens if CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y?  Do you get garbage or 
just no events reported?

>> In fact there's no reason why LBR cannot be virtualized (though it does need
>> support from the processor), and it may even be possible to support
>> OFFCORE_RSP_X in the KVM virtual PMU.
> But its not, so something needs to be done, right?

A first thing that could be done, is to have a way for the kernel to 
detect absence of LBR, for example an all-1s setting of the LBR format 
field of IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES.  If Intel can tell us "all 1s will 
never be used", we can have KVM set the field that way.  The kernel then 
should disable LBR.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists