linux-kernel - Re: [RFD] x86/split_lock: Request to Intel

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:36:41 +0800
From:   Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
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: [RFD] x86/split_lock: Request to Intel

On 10/17/2019 8:29 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> The more I look at this trainwreck, the less interested I am in merging any
> of this at all.
> 
> The fact that it took Intel more than a year to figure out that the MSR is
> per core and not per thread is yet another proof that this industry just
> works by pure chance.
> 

Whether it's per-core or per-thread doesn't affect much how we implement 
for host/native.

And also, no matter it's per-core or per-thread, we always can do 
something in VIRT.

Maybe what matters is below.

> Seriously, this makes only sense when it's by default enabled and not
> rendered useless by VIRT. Otherwise we never get any reports and none of
> the issues are going to be fixed.
>

For VIRT, it doesn't want old guest to be killed due to #AC. But for 
native, it doesn't want VIRT to disable the #AC detection

I think it's just about the default behavior that whether to disable the 
host's #AC detection or kill the guest (SIGBUS or something else) once 
there is an split-lock #AC in guest.

So we can provide CONFIG option to set the default behavior and module 
parameter to let KVM set/change the default behavior.