linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: X86: Allow userspace to define the microcode version

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]

Date:   Mon, 26 Feb 2018 19:02:29 +0800
From:   Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: X86: Allow userspace to define the microcode version

2018-02-26 18:49 GMT+08:00 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 06:06:42PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> I think it is the host admin(e.g. cloud provider)'s responsibility to
>> set an expected microcode revision.
>
> +       vcpu->arch.microcode_version = 0x1;
>
> That already looks pretty arbitrary and non-sensical to me.

This is the original kvm implementation before the patch.

>
>>In addition, the non-sensical value which is written by the guest will
>>not reflect to guest-visible microcode revision and just be ignored in
>>this implementation.
>
> Huh? How so?
>
> So a guest will have *two* microcode revisions - both of which are most
> likely wrong?!

Just one revision.

>
> This whole thing sounds like the wrong approach to me.
>
>> Linux (among the others) has checks to make sure that certain features
>> aren't enabled on a certain family/model/stepping if the microcode version
>> isn't greater than or equal to a known good version.
>
> It sounds to me like the proper fix is to make the kernel *not* look at
> microcode revisions when running virtualized. The same way we're not
> loading microcode in a guest:
>
>         if (native_cpuid_ecx(1) & BIT(31))
>
> Letting userspace control the microcode revision number is revision
> number management SNAFU waiting to happen IMO.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/9/29 The original discussion explain in
more details.

Regards,
Wanpeng Li