linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: x86: Allow userspace to define what's the microcode version

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: <CABayD+dirdj9k=y=yKKJos+Wp-Yh91aO8RJwqMP-1UP54qD3+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Nov 2017 14:09:05 -0800
From:   Steve Rutherford <srutherford@...gle.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Filippo Sironi <sironi@...zon.de>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: x86: Allow userspace to define what's the
 microcode version

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 26/11/2017 17:41, Filippo Sironi wrote:
>> ... that the guest should see.
>> Guest operating systems may check the microcode version to decide whether
>> to disable certain features that are known to be buggy up to certain
>> microcode versions.  Address the issue by making the microcode version
>> that the guest should see settable.
>> The rationale for having userspace specifying the microcode version, rather
>> than having the kernel picking it, is to ensure consistency for live-migrated
>> instances; we don't want them to see a microcode version increase without a
>> reset.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Filippo Sironi <sironi@...zon.de>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c       | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  include/uapi/linux/kvm.h |  3 +++
>>  2 files changed, 26 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> index 925c3e29cad3..741588f27ebc 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> @@ -4033,6 +4033,29 @@ long kvm_arch_vm_ioctl(struct file *filp,
>>       } u;
>>
>>       switch (ioctl) {
>> +     case KVM_GET_MICROCODE_VERSION: {
>> +             r = -EFAULT;
>> +             if (copy_to_user(argp,
>> +                              &kvm->arch.microcode_version,
>> +                              sizeof(kvm->arch.microcode_version)))
>> +                     goto out;
>> +             break;
>> +     }
>> +     case KVM_SET_MICROCODE_VERSION: {
>> +             u32 microcode_version;
>> +
>> +             r = -EFAULT;
>> +             if (copy_from_user(&microcode_version,
>> +                                argp,
>> +                                sizeof(microcode_version)))
>> +                     goto out;
>> +             r = -EINVAL;
>> +             if (!microcode_version)
>> +                     goto out;
>> +             kvm->arch.microcode_version = microcode_version;
>> +             r = 0;
>> +             break;
>> +     }
>
> Also, there's no need to define new ioctls, instead you can just place
> it in the vcpu and use KVM_GET_MSR/KVM_SET_MSR.  I'd agree that's
> slightly less polished, but it matches what we do already for e.g.
> nested VMX model specific registers.  And it spares you for writing the
> documentation that you didn't include in this patch. :)
>
> Paolo

This feels good time to mention Peter Hornyack's old MSR KVM_EXIT
patches. With something like them, there would be no need to push this
into the kernel at all.