linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] KVM: Expose speculation control feature to guests

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: <1517358382.18619.149.camel@infradead.org>
Date:   Wed, 31 Jan 2018 00:26:22 +0000
From:   David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Cc:     KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.de>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Janakarajan Natarajan <Janakarajan.Natarajan@....com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] KVM: Expose speculation control feature to
 guests



On Tue, 2018-01-30 at 19:16 -0500, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 30/01/2018 18:48, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Certainly not every vmexit!  But doing it on every userspace vmexit and
> > > every sched_out would not be *that* bad.
> > Right.. agreed. We discussed the different scenarios that doing IBPB
> > on VMexit would help, and decided its really not required on every exit. 
> > 
> > One obvious case is when there is a VMexit and return back to Qemu
> > process (witout a real context switch) do we need that to be 
> > protected from any poisoned BTB from guest?
> If the host is using retpolines, then some kind of barrier is needed.  I
> don't know if the full PRED_CMD barrier is needed, or two IBRS=1/IBRS=0
> writes back-to-back are enough.
> 
> If the host is using IBRS, then writing IBRS=1 at vmexit has established
> a barrier from the less privileged VMX guest environment.

IBRS will protect qemu userspace only if you set it at some point
before exiting the kernel. You don't want it set *in* the kernel, if
we're using retpolines in the kernel, so you'd want to clear it again
on the way back into the kernel. It's almost the opposite of what the
IBRS patch set was doing to protect the kernel.

Just use IBPB :)
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5213 bytes)