linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] KVM: x86: always expose VIRT

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: <20191001221646.GN4084@habkost.net>
Date:   Tue, 1 Oct 2019 19:16:46 -0300
From:   Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@...hat.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>, konrad.wilk@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] KVM: x86: always expose VIRT_SSBD to guests

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 10:26:41AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Even though it is preferrable to use SPEC_CTRL (represented by
> X86_FEATURE_AMD_SSBD) instead of VIRT_SPEC, VIRT_SPEC is always
> supported anyway because otherwise it would be impossible to
> migrate from old to new CPUs.  Make this apparent in the
> result of KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID as well.
> 
> While at it, reuse X86_FEATURE_* constants for the SVM leaf too.
> 
> However, we need to hide the bit on Intel processors, so move
> the setting to svm_set_supported_cpuid.
> 
> Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
> Reported-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> ---
[...]
> @@ -5944,6 +5944,11 @@ static void svm_set_supported_cpuid(u32 func, struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *entry)
>  		if (nested)
>  			entry->ecx |= (1 << 2); /* Set SVM bit */
>  		break;
> +	case 0x80000008:
> +		if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_LS_CFG_SSBD) ||
> +		     boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_AMD_SSBD))
> +			entry->ebx |= F(VIRT_SSBD);
> +		break;

Wasn't the old code at arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c:__do_cpuid_func()
supposed to be deleted?

               /*
                * The preference is to use SPEC CTRL MSR instead of the
                * VIRT_SPEC MSR.
                */
               if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_LS_CFG_SSBD) &&
                   !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_AMD_SSBD))
                       entry->ebx |= F(VIRT_SSBD);


-- 
Eduardo