linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] KVM: VMX: Allow direct access to MSR_IA32_SPEC

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALMp9eRgc-qKS5CDTvqoUDdnAXu8xqy9ZB-rew=P9NgE5AfXWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Jan 2018 11:53:52 -0800
From:   Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
To:     KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.de>
Cc:     kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
        Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] KVM: VMX: Allow direct access to MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 11:37 AM, KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.de> wrote:

> +
> +       if (to_vmx(vcpu)->save_spec_ctrl_on_exit) {
> +               nested_vmx_disable_intercept_for_msr(
> +                               msr_bitmap_l1, msr_bitmap_l0,
> +                               MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL,
> +                               MSR_TYPE_R | MSR_TYPE_W);
> +       }
> +

As this is written, L2 will never get direct access to this MSR until
after L1 writes it.  What if L1 never writes it? The condition should
really be something that captures, "if L0 is willing to yield this MSR
to the guest..."