linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 09/17] x86/split_lock: Handle #AC exception for split lock

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: <d30652bb-89fa-671a-5691-e2c76af231d0@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Oct 2019 13:26:35 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        x86 <x86@...nel.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 09/17] x86/split_lock: Handle #AC exception for split
 lock

On 16/10/19 13:23, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> KVM always traps #AC, and only advertises split-lock detection to guest
> when the global variable split_lock_detection_enabled in host is true.
> 
> - If guest enables #AC (CPL3 alignment check or split-lock detection
> enabled), injecting #AC back into guest since it's supposed capable of
> handling it.
> - If guest doesn't enable #AC, KVM reports #AC to userspace (like other
> unexpected exceptions), and we can print a hint in kernel, or let
> userspace (e.g., QEMU) tell the user guest is killed because there is a
> split-lock in guest.
> 
> In this way, malicious guests always get killed by userspace and old
> sane guests cannot survive as well if it causes split-lock. If we do
> want old sane guests work we have to disable the split-lock detection
> (through booting parameter or debugfs) in the host just the same as we
> want to run an old and split-lock generating userspace binary.

Old guests are prevalent enough that enabling split-lock detection by
default would be a big usability issue.  And even ignoring that, you
would get the issue you describe below:

> But there is an issue that we advertise split-lock detection to guest
> based on the value of split_lock_detection_enabled to be true in host,
> which can be turned into false dynamically when split-lock happens in
> host kernel.

... which means that supposedly safe guests become unsafe, and that is bad.

> This causes guest's capability changes at run time and I
> don't if there is a better way to inform guest? Maybe we need a pv
> interface?

Even a PV interface would not change the basic fact that a supposedly
safe configuration becomes unsafe.

Paolo