linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] KVM: x86: tell guests if the exposed SMT topology is trustworthy

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: <20191106083212.GO4131@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:32:12 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] KVM: x86: tell guests if the exposed SMT topology is
 trustworthy

On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 12:51:30AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 05/11/19 21:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 05:17:37PM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> Virtualized guests may pick a different strategy to mitigate hardware
> >> vulnerabilities when it comes to hyper-threading: disable SMT completely,
> >> use core scheduling, or, for example, opt in for STIBP. Making the
> >> decision, however, requires an extra bit of information which is currently
> >> missing: does the topology the guest see match hardware or if it is 'fake'
> >> and two vCPUs which look like different cores from guest's perspective can
> >> actually be scheduled on the same physical core. Disabling SMT or doing
> >> core scheduling only makes sense when the topology is trustworthy.
> >>
> >> Add two feature bits to KVM: KVM_FEATURE_TRUSTWORTHY_SMT with the meaning
> >> that KVM_HINTS_TRUSTWORTHY_SMT bit answers the question if the exposed SMT
> >> topology is actually trustworthy. It would, of course, be possible to get
> >> away with a single bit (e.g. 'KVM_FEATURE_FAKE_SMT') and not lose backwards
> >> compatibility but the current approach looks more straightforward.
> > 
> > The only way virt topology can make any sense what so ever is if the
> > vcpus are pinned to physical CPUs.
> 
> This is a subset of the requirements for "trustworthy" SMT.  You can have:
> 
> - vCPUs pinned to two threads in the same core and exposed as multiple
> cores in the guest

Why the .... would one do anything like that?

> - vCPUs from different guests pinned to two threads in the same core
> 
> and that would be okay as far as KVM_HINTS_REALTIME is concerned, but
> would still allow exploitation of side-channels, respectively within the
> VM and between VMs.

Hardly, RT really rather would not have SMT. SMT is pretty crap for
determinism.