[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1517436624.18619.224.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 22:10:24 +0000
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.com>,
KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.de>,
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>,
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, 2018-01-31 at 14:06 -0800, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 1:59 PM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:
> > I'm actually working on IBRS_ALL at the moment.
> >
> > I was tempted to *not* let the guests turn it off. Expose SPEC_CTRL but
> > just make it a no-op.
>
> Maybe we could convince Intel to add a LOCK bit to IA32_SPEC_CTRL like
> the one in IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL.
Given that IBRS_ALL is supposed to be a sanely-performing option, I'd
rather convince Intel to just make it unconditional. If they've added
the appropriate tagging to the BTB, why even *have* this deliberately
insecure mode when IBRS==0?
I understand that until/unless they get a *proper* fix, software is
still going to have to use IBPB as appropriate. But there's no need for
the IBRS bit to do *anything*.
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5213 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists