[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1516378093.5087.30.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 17:08:13 +0100
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 34/35] x86/kvm: Add IBPB support
On Fri, 2018-01-19 at 16:25 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Without retpolines, KVM userspace is not protected from the guest
> poisoning the BTB, because there is no IBRS-barrier on the vmexit
> path.
> So there are two more IBPBs that are needed if retpolines are
> enabled:
>
> 1) in kvm_sched_out
>
> 2) at the end of vcpu_run
Hm, yes. That does seem reasonable. Can we make it conditional so it
only happens *if* we end up back in userspace, and not for a VM-
>kernel->VM transition?
And can I have a patch against
http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/linux-retpoline.git/shortlog/refs/heads/ibpb-upstream
please (see the XX in that top commit too).
I'm still putting that together, and the IBRS bits on top; getting on
an airplane to spend some more quality time with it now...
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5213 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists