[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801311111181.2293@nanos>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 11:15:50 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Christophe de Dinechin <christophe.de.dinechin@...il.com>
cc: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@...hat.com>,
KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.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>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC,05/10] x86/speculation: Add basic IBRS support
infrastructure
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
> > On 30 Jan 2018, at 21:46, Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> If you are ever going to migrate to Skylake, I think you should just
> >> always tell the guests that you're running on Skylake. That way the
> >> guests will always assume the worst case situation wrt Specte.
> >
> > Unfortunately if you do that then guest may also decide to use other
> > Skylake hardware features and pop its clogs when it finds out its actually
> > running on Westmere or SandyBridge.
> >
> > So you need to be able to both lie to the OS and user space via cpuid and
> > also have a second 'but do skylake protections' that only mitigation
> > aware software knows about.
>
> Yes. The most desirable lie is different depending on whether you want to
> allow virtualization features such as migration (where you’d gravitate
> towards a CPU with less features) or whether you want to allow mitigation
> (where you’d rather present the most fragile CPUID, probably Skylake).
>
> Looking at some recent patches, I’m concerned that the code being added
> often assumes that the CPUID is the correct way to get that info.
> I do not think this is correct. You really want specific information about
> the host CPUID, not whatever KVM CPUID emulation makes up.
That wont cut it. If you have a heterogenous farm of systems, then you need:
- All CPUs have to support IBRS/IBPB or at least hte hypervisor has to
pretend they do by providing fake MRS for that
- Have a 'force IBRS/IBPB' mechanism so the guests don't discard it due
to missing CPU feature bits.
Though this gets worse. You have to make sure that the guest keeps _ALL_
sorts of mitigation mechanisms enabled and does not decide to disable
retpolines because IBRS/IBPB are "available".
Good luck with making all that work.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists