linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v3 1/6] KVM: nVMX: Use hardware MSR bitmap

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: <A9667DDFB95DB7438FA9D7D576C3D87E0AC2C932@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:33:24 +0000
From:	"Zhang, Yang Z" <yang.z.zhang@...el.com>
To:	Wincy Van <fanwenyi0529@...il.com>
CC:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	"gleb@...nel.org" <gleb@...nel.org>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 1/6] KVM: nVMX: Use hardware MSR bitmap

Zhang, Yang Z wrote on 2015-01-28:
> Wincy Van wrote on 2015-01-28:
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Zhang, Yang Z
>> <yang.z.zhang@...el.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> If L0 wants to intercept a msr, we should set
>>>> vmx_msr_bitmap_legacy(_x2apic) and vmx_msr_bitmap_longmode(_x2apic),
>>>> and that bitmaps should only be loaded in non-nested entry. Currently
>>>> we only clear the corresponding bits if L1 enables virtualize x2apic
>>>> mode, all the other bits are all set. On nested entry, we load
>>>> nested_msr_bitmap, on nested vmexit, we will restore L0's bitmap. In
>>>> the nested entry, L0 only care about L2's msr access, not L1's. I
>>>> think that in nested entry, nested_msr_bitmap is "vmcs01->msr_bitmap"
>>>> as your mentioned above.
>>> 
>>> Mmm... I think if the bit is setting in vmcs01->msr_bitmap means
>>> whenever
>> the VCPU(no matter in nested guest mode or not) accesses this msr
>> should cause vmexit, not only L1. That's why need to construct the
>> vmcs02->msr_bitmap based on (vmcs01->msr_bitmap ORed
>> vmcs12->msr_bitmap).
>>> 
>> 
>> You are right, but this is not fit for all the cases, we should
>> custom the nested_msr_bitmap.
>> e.g.  Currently L0 wants to intercept some of the x2apic msrs' reading:
>>          if (enable_apicv) {
>>                 for (msr = 0x800; msr <= 0x8ff; msr++)
> vmx_disable_intercept_msr_read_x2apic(msr);
>>                 /* According SDM, in x2apic mode, the whole id reg
>> is
> used.
>>                  * But in KVM, it only use the highest eight bits. Need to
>>                  * intercept it */
>>                 vmx_enable_intercept_msr_read_x2apic(0x802); /* TMCCT
>>                 */ vmx_enable_intercept_msr_read_x2apic(0x839); /* TPR
>>                 */ vmx_disable_intercept_msr_write_x2apic(0x808); /*
>> EOI
> */
>>                 vmx_disable_intercept_msr_write_x2apic(0x80b); /*
>>                 SELF-IPI */
>>                 vmx_disable_intercept_msr_write_x2apic(0x83f);
>>         }
>> But L1 may not want this. So I think we are better to deal with the
> 
> Actually, from L0's point, it is totally unaware of the L2. The only
> thing L0 aware is that the CPU should follow L0's configuration when
> VCPU is running. So if L0 wants to trap a msr, then the read operation
> to this msr should cause vmexit unconditionally no matter who is running(who means L1, L2, L3.....).
> 
>> msrs seperately, there is not a common way suit for all the cases.
>> If other features want to intercept a msr in nested entry, they can
>> put the custom code in nested_vmx_merge_msr_bitmap.
> 
> Yes, if other features want to do it in 'nested' entry, they can fill
> nested_vmx_merge_msr_bitmap. But if in non-nested case, it should be
> our responsibly to handle it correctly, how about add following check:
> 
> if (type & MSR_TYPE_R && !test_bit(msr, vmcs01_msr_bitmap) &&
> !test_bit(msr, msr_bitmap_l1 + 0x000 / f))
>         __clear_bit(msr, msr_bitmap_nested + 0x000 / f);


Anyway, this is not necessary for your current patch. We can consider it later if there really have other features will use it.

> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Wincy
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Yang
>


Best regards,
Yang