linux-kernel - Re: [RFC KVM 00/27] KVM Address Space Isolation

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]

Date:   Tue, 14 May 2019 09:37:38 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>,
        Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        jan.setjeeilers@...cle.com, Jonathan Adams <jwadams@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC KVM 00/27] KVM Address Space Isolation

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 07:07:36PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 2:09 PM Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com> wrote:

> > The hope is that the very vast majority of #VMExit handlers will be
> > able to completely run without requiring to switch to full address
> > space. Therefore, avoiding the performance hit of (2).

> > However, for the very few #VMExits that does require to run in full
> > kernel address space, we must first kick the sibling hyperthread
> > outside of guest and only then switch to full kernel address space
> > and only once all hyperthreads return to KVM address space, then
> > allow then to enter into guest.
> 
> What exactly does "kick" mean in this context?  It sounds like you're
> going to need to be able to kick sibling VMs from extremely atomic
> contexts like NMI and MCE.

Yeah, doing the full synchronous thing from NMI/MCE context sounds
exceedingly dodgy, howver..

Realistically they only need to send an IPI to the other sibling; they
don't need to wait for the VMExit to complete or anything else.

And that is something we can do from NMI context -- with a bit of care.
See also arch_irq_work_raise(); specifically we need to ensure we leave
the APIC in an idle state, such that if we interrupted an APIC sequence
it will not suddenly fail/violate the APIC write/state etc.