linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 05/10] KVM/x86: expose MSR_IA32_PERF

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5C34570D.6010208@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 08 Jan 2019 15:53:49 +0800
From:   Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        like.xu@...el.com, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        arei.gonglei@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/10] KVM/x86: expose MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES to
 the guest

On 01/08/2019 02:48 AM, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:20 AM Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> The issue is compatibility. Prior to your change, reading this MSR
>>> from a VM would raise #GP. After your change, it won't. That means
>>> that if you have a VM migrating between hosts with kernel versions
>>> before and after this change, the results will be inconsistent. In the
>> No it will not be. All Linux kernel uses of this MSR are guarded
>> by a CPUID check.
> Linux usage is irrelevant to the architected behavior of the virtual
> CPU. According to volume 4 of the SDM, this MSR is only supported when
> CPUID.01H:ECX.PDCM [bit 15] is set. Therefore, kvm should raise #GP
> whenever a guest tries to read this MSR and the guest's
> CPUID.01H:ECX.PDCM [bit 15] is clear.
>

Probably one more check would be better:

if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PDCM) ||
     !guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_PDCM))
     return 1;

(host isn't expected to read this MSR when PDCM is not supported
by the guest, so don't have "!msr_info->host_initiate" added to above)

Best,
Wei