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: <CANRm+CzXieWra9uyEuVpHF+5=Vq+JN4QY9BvJXRL3DEwqBGAag@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 May 2018 20:01:24 +0800
From:   Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.de>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <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>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] KVM: x86: Add IBPB support

2018-05-03 17:19 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>:
> On 03/05/2018 03:27, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> So for 1) guest->guest attacks 2) guest/ring3->host/ring3 attacks 3)
>> guest/ring0->host/ring0 attacks, if IBPB is enough to protect these
>> three scenarios and retpoline is not needed?
>
> In theory yes, in practice if you want to do that IBPB is much more
> expensive than retpolines, because you'd need an IBPB on vmexit or a
> cache flush on vmentry.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/4/615 Retpoline is not recommended on
Skylake, so we need to pay the penalty for IBPB flush on each vmexit I
think.

Regards,
Wanpeng Li