linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 12/15] kvm/vmx: Emulate MSR TEST

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: <87ef9a01-fc99-20be-ec20-2c65e6a012a1@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Sun, 28 Apr 2019 15:34:26 +0800
From:   Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Christopherson Sean J <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        x86 <x86@...nel.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 12/15] kvm/vmx: Emulate MSR TEST_CTL



On 4/28/2019 3:09 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2019, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
>> On Thu, 2019-04-25 at 09:42 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2019, Fenghua Yu wrote:
>>>>   
>>>> +static void atomic_switch_msr_test_ctl(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	u64 host_msr_test_ctl;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT))
>>>> +		return;
>>>
>>> Again: MSR_TST_CTL is not only about LOCK_DETECT. Check the control mask.
>>>
>>>> +	host_msr_test_ctl = this_cpu_read(msr_test_ctl_cache);
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (host_msr_test_ctl == vmx->msr_test_ctl) {
>>>
>>> This still assumes that the only bit which can be set in the MSR is that
>>> lock detect bit.
>>>
>>>> +		clear_atomic_switch_msr(vmx, MSR_TEST_CTL);
>>>> +	} else {
>>>> +		add_atomic_switch_msr(vmx, MSR_TEST_CTL, vmx->msr_test_ctl,
>>>> +				      host_msr_test_ctl, false);
>>>
>>> So what happens here is that if any other bit is set on the host, VMENTER
>>> will happily clear it.
>>
>> There are two bits of MSR TEST_CTL defined in Intel SDM now, which is bit
>> 29 and bit 31. Bit 31 is not used in kernel, and here we only need to
>> switch bit 29 between host and guest.  So should I also change the name
>> to atomic_switch_split_lock_detect() to indicate that we only switch bit
>> 29?
> 
> No. Just because we ony use the split lock bit now, there is no
> jusification to name everything splitlock. This is going to have renamed
> when yet another bit is added in the future. The MSR is exposed to the
> guest and the restriction of bits happens to be splitlock today.

Got it.

>>>       guest = (host & ~vmx->test_ctl_mask) | vmx->test_ctl;
>>>
>>> That preserves any bits which are not exposed to the guest.
>>>
>>> But the way more interesting question is why are you exposing the MSR and
>>> the bit to the guest at all if the host has split lock detection enabled?
>>>
>>> That does not make any sense as you basically allow the guest to switch it
>>> off and then launch a slowdown attack. If the host has it enabled, then a
>>> guest has to be treated like any other process and the #AC trap has to be
>>> caught by the hypervisor which then kills the guest.
>>>
>>> Only if the host has split lock detection disabled, then you can expose it
>>> and allow the guest to turn it on and handle it on its own.
>>
>> Indeed, if we use split lock detection for protection purpose, when host
>> has it enabled we should directly pass it to guest and forbid guest from
>> disabling it.  And only when host disables split lock detection, we can
>> expose it and allow the guest to turn it on.
> ?
>> If it is used for protection purpose, then it should follow what you said and
>> this feature needs to be disabled by default. Because there are split lock
>> issues in old/current kernels and BIOS. That will cause the existing guest
>> booting failure and killed due to those split lock.
> 
> Rightfully so.

So, the patch 13 "Enable split lock detection by default" needs to be 
removed?

>> If it is only used for debug purpose, I think it might be OK to enable this
>> feature by default and make it indepedent between host and guest?
> 
> No. It does not make sense.
> 
>> So I think how to handle this feature between host and guest depends on how we
>> use it? Once you give me a decision, I will follow it in next version.
> 
> As I said: The host kernel makes the decision.
> 
> If the host kernel has it enabled then the guest is not allowed to change
> it. If the guest triggers an #AC it will be killed.
> 
> If the host kernel has it disabled then the guest can enable it for it's
> own purposes.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
>