linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] x86/split_lock: Enumerate #AC exception for split locked access feature

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: <ea23cde0-f999-0ed8-a3bc-e798511467bd@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:54:29 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@...hat.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
        Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] x86/split_lock: Enumerate #AC exception for split
 locked access feature

On 07/10/2018 11:45 AM, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 05:07:42PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 06:23:35PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>>> Is this MSR not really model-specific?  Is it OK to go poking at it on
>>>> all x86 variants?  Or, do we at _least_ need a check for Intel cpus in here?
>>>
>>> That definitely needs a vendor check. Also the whole code needs to be
>>> compiled out if CONFIG_INTEL=n.
>>>
>>> Aside of that this wants to be enumerated. CPUID or MISC_FEATURES and not
>>> this guess work detection logic. Why do I have to ask for that for every
>>> other new feature thingy?
>>
>> Yes, please.  KVM hosts normally expect guests to not touch MSRs
>> unless we explicitly tell them the MSR is available (normally
>> through CPUID).  This is important to ensure live migration
>> between different host kernel versions works reliably.
> 
> The problem is the hardware design for the feature is complete. The
> hardware designer cannot change the feature enumeration to CPUID or
> MISC_FEATURES.

Let's be honest, though.  That's not *hardware* design; that is a
microcode update.  We've seen what microcode updates can do _very_
clearly with all the security issues.  We (Intel) can surely fix this if
sufficiently motivated.  No?

> There is no enumeration and no flag in /proc/cpuinfo flag for the feature.

Huh?  /proc/cpuinfo has tons on non-CPUID-instruction-based features.
There's a retpoline one and a PTI one for goodness sake.