linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND v3 2/3] KVM: vmx: Emulate MSR IA32_UMWAIT

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: <5f34bd4b-b3d1-1950-e4d5-8e65c3809ab1@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Jun 2019 23:54:42 +0800
From:   Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Cc:     Tao Xu <tao3.xu@...el.com>, pbonzini@...hat.com, corbet@....net,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com,
        sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, fenghua.yu@...el.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        jingqi.liu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v3 2/3] KVM: vmx: Emulate MSR IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL



On 6/17/2019 11:50 PM, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2019-06-17 14:31+0800, Xiaoyao Li:
>> On 6/17/2019 11:32 AM, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
>>> On 6/16/2019 5:55 PM, Tao Xu wrote:
>>>> +    if (vmx->msr_ia32_umwait_control != host_umwait_control)
>>>> +        add_atomic_switch_msr(vmx, MSR_IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL,
>>>> +                      vmx->msr_ia32_umwait_control,
>>>> +                      host_umwait_control, false);
>>>
>>> The bit 1 is reserved, at least, we need to do below to ensure not
>>> modifying the reserved bit:
>>>
>>>       guest_val = (vmx->msr_ia32_umwait_control & ~BIT_ULL(1)) |
>>>               (host_val & BIT_ULL(1))
>>>
>>
>> I find a better solution to ensure reserved bit 1 not being modified in
>> vmx_set_msr() as below:
>>
>> 	if((data ^ umwait_control_cached) & BIT_ULL(1))
>> 		return 1;
> 
> We could just be checking
> 
> 	if (data & BIT_ULL(1))
> 
> because the guest cannot change its visible reserved value and KVM
> currently initializes the value to 0.
> 
> The arch/x86/kernel/cpu/umwait.c series assumes that the reserved bit
> is 0 (hopefully deliberately) and I would do the same in KVM as it
> simplifies the logic.  (We don't have to even think about migrations
> between machines with a different reserved value and making it play
> nicely with possible future implementations of that bit.)
> 

Got it, thanks.

> Thanks.
>