linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/16] x86/cpu: Detect VMX features on Intel, Centaur and Zhaoxin CPUs

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: <20191007195422.GF18016@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Oct 2019 12:54:22 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        x86@...nel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Tony W Wang-oc <TonyWWang-oc@...oxin.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/16] x86/cpu: Detect VMX features on Intel, Centaur and
 Zhaoxin CPUs

On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 07:11:24PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 04/10/19 23:56, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > +	/*
> > +	 * The high bits contain the allowed-1 settings, i.e. features that can
> > +	 * be turned on.  The low bits contain the allowed-0 settings, i.e.
> > +	 * features that can be turned off.  Ignore the allowed-0 settings,
> > +	 * if a feature can be turned on then it's supported.
> > +	 */
> > +	rdmsr(MSR_IA32_VMX_PINBASED_CTLS, ign, supported);
> 
> For QEMU, we're defining a feature as supported if a feature can be
> turned both on and off.  Since msr_low and msr_high can be defined
> respectively as must-be-one and can-be-one, the features become
> "msr_high & ~msr_low".

That makes sense for Qemu, but I don't think it's appropriate for this
type of reporting.  E.g. if EPT and Unrestricted Guest are must-be-one on
a hypothetical (virtual) CPU, it'd be odd to not list them as a supported
feature.

For actual hardware (well, Intel hardware), as proposed it's a moot point.
The only features that are must-be-one (even without "true" MSRs) and are
documented in the SDM are CR3_LOAD_EXITING, CR3_STORE_EXITING,
SAVE_DEBUG_CONTROLS, and LOAD_DEBUG_CONTROLS, none of which are reported
in /proc/cpuinfo.

> Also, shouldn't this use the "true" feature availability MSRs if available?

Only if incorporating the "& ~msr_low" can-be-one logic.  If a feature is
considered supported if it must-be-one or can-be-one then the true MSR and
vanilla MSR will yield the same feature set.

> 
> Paolo