[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6a1ca44c-1bbc-c3bd-094b-61f6aa873815@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 17:48:15 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
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 19/01/2018 17:08, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 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?
We can/want/must. It's actually kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run, not vcpu_run.
Sorry.
> 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...
I'm completely lost with all the branches...
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists