linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] perf/x86/intel: Disable check

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: <34c248fd-fb34-e2ae-01ae-7576694a2eff@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jun 2019 10:06:17 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@...gle.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tom Vaden <tom.vaden@....com>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] perf/x86/intel: Disable check_msr for real hw

On 24/06/19 00:40, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:48:25AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 01:28:53PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>>> hi,
>>> the HPE server can do POST tracing and have enabled LBR
>>> tracing during the boot, which makes check_msr fail falsly.
>>>
>>> It looks like check_msr code was added only to check on guests
>>> MSR access, would it be then ok to disable check_msr for real
>>> hardware? (as in patch below)
>>>
>>> We could also check if LBR tracing is enabled and make
>>> appropriate checks, but this change is simpler ;-)
>>>
>>> ideas? thanks,
>>> jirka
>>
>> Sorry for the late comment. I see this patch has been merged now.
>>
>> Unfortunately I don't think it's a good idea. The problem 
>> is that the hypervisor flags are only set for a few hypervisors
>> that Linux knows about. But in practice there are many more
>> Hypervisors around that will not cause these flags to be set.
>> But these are still likely to miss MSRs.
>>
>> The other hypervisors are relatively obscure, but eventually
>> someone will hit problems.
> 
> any idea if there's any other flag/way we could use to detect those?

There's no silver bullet, the best is boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR).

Paolo