linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] KVM: x86: Add IBPB support

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: <2030fb28-ca91-744d-52b3-5469b18e6f27@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 5 Feb 2018 20:22:37 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Cc:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.de>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] KVM: x86: Add IBPB support

On 02/02/2018 21:52, Alan Cox wrote:
>>> No. The AMD feature bits give us more fine-grained support for exposing
>>> IBPB or IBRS alone, so we expose those bits on Intel too.  
>> But but.. that runs smack against the idea of exposing a platform that
>> is as close to emulating the real hardware as possible.
> Agreed, and it's asking for problems in the future if for example Intel
> or another non AMD vendor did ever use that leaf for something different.

Leaves starting at 0 are reserved to Intel; leaves starting at
0x80000000 are reserved to AMD.

0x40000000 to 0x400000FF (some will say 0x4FFFFFFF) are reserved to
hypervisors.

> Now whether there ought to be an MSR range every vendor agrees is never
> implemented so software can use it is an interesting discussion.

For MSRs there is no explicit indication, but traditionally Intel is
using numbers based at 0 and AMD is using numbers based at 0xC0000000.

Furthermore, the manuals for virtualization extensions tell you that
Intel isn't planning to go beyond 0x1FFF, and AMD is planning to use
only 0xC0000000-0xC0001FFF and 0xC0010000-0xC0011FFF.

Thanks,

Paolo