linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] kvm: svm: Enable UMIP feature on AMD

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: <91a05d64-36c0-c4c4-fe49-83a4db1ade10@amd.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Nov 2019 20:04:15 +0000
From:   "Moger, Babu" <Babu.Moger@....com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
CC:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "rkrcmar@...hat.com" <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        "sean.j.christopherson@...el.com" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        "vkuznets@...hat.com" <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        "wanpengli@...cent.com" <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
        "zohar@...ux.ibm.com" <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com" <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        "nayna@...ux.ibm.com" <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] kvm: svm: Enable UMIP feature on AMD



On 11/1/19 2:24 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 12:20 PM Moger, Babu <Babu.Moger@....com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/1/19 1:29 PM, Jim Mattson wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 10:33 AM Moger, Babu <Babu.Moger@....com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> AMD 2nd generation EPYC processors support UMIP (User-Mode Instruction
>>>> Prevention) feature. The UMIP feature prevents the execution of certain
>>>> instructions if the Current Privilege Level (CPL) is greater than 0.
>>>> If any of these instructions are executed with CPL > 0 and UMIP
>>>> is enabled, then kernel reports a #GP exception.
>>>>
>>>> The idea is taken from articles:
>>>> https://lwn.net/Articles/738209/
>>>> https://lwn.net/Articles/694385/
>>>>
>>>> Enable the feature if supported on bare metal and emulate instructions
>>>> to return dummy values for certain cases.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  arch/x86/kvm/svm.c |   21 ++++++++++++++++-----
>>>>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
>>>> index 4153ca8cddb7..79abbdeca148 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
>>>> @@ -2533,6 +2533,11 @@ static void svm_decache_cr4_guest_bits(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>  {
>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>> +static bool svm_umip_emulated(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       return boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_UMIP);
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> This makes no sense to me. If the hardware actually supports UMIP,
>>> then it doesn't have to be emulated.
>> My understanding..
>>
>> If the hardware supports the UMIP, it will generate the #GP fault when
>> these instructions are executed at CPL > 0. Purpose of the emulation is to
>> trap the GP and return a dummy value. Seems like this required in certain
>> legacy OSes running in protected and virtual-8086 modes. In long mode no
>> need to emulate. Here is the bit explanation https://lwn.net/Articles/738209/
>>
> 
> Indeed.  Again, what does this have to do with your patch?
> 
>>
>>>
>>> To the extent that kvm emulates UMIP on Intel CPUs without hardware
>>> UMIP (i.e. smsw is still allowed at CPL>0), we can always do the same
>>> emulation on AMD, because SVM has always offered intercepts of sgdt,
>>> sidt, sldt, and str. So, if you really want to offer this emulation on
>>> pre-EPYC 2 CPUs, this function should just return true. But, I have to
>>> ask, "why?"
>>
>>
>> Trying to support UMIP feature only on EPYC 2 hardware. No intention to
>> support pre-EPYC 2.
>>
> 
> I think you need to totally rewrite your changelog to explain what you
> are doing.
> 
> As I understand it, there are a couple of things KVM can do:
> 
> 1. If the underlying hardware supports UMIP, KVM can expose UMIP to
> the guest.  SEV should be irrelevant here.
> 
> 2. Regardless of whether the underlying hardware supports UMIP, KVM
> can try to emulate UMIP in the guest.  This may be impossible if SEV
> is enabled.
> 
> Which of these are you doing?
> 
My intention was to do 1.  Let me go back and think about this again.