linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] x86/kvm/hyper-v: move VMX controls sanitization out of nested_enable

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]

Date:   Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:15:41 +0100
From:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>,
        Roman Kagan <rkagan@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] x86/kvm/hyper-v: move VMX controls sanitization out of nested_enable_evmcs()

Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> writes:

> On 22/01/20 17:29, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Yes, in case we're back to the idea to filter things out in QEMU we can
>> do this. What I don't like is that every other userspace which decides
>> to enable eVMCS will have to perform the exact same surgery as in case
>> it sets allow_unsupported_controls=0 it'll have to know (hardcode) the
>> filtering (or KVM_SET_MSRS will fail) and in case it opts for
>> allow_unsupported_controls=1 Windows guests just won't boot without the
>> filtering.
>> 
>> It seems to be 1:1, eVMCSv1 requires the filter.
>
> Yes, that's the point.  It *is* a hack in KVM, but it is generally
> preferrable to have an easier API for userspace, if there's only one way
> to do it.
>
> Though we could be a bit more "surgical" and only remove
> SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_APIC_ACCESSES---thus minimizing the impact on
> non-eVMCS guests.  Vitaly, can you prepare a v2 that does that and adds
> a huge "hack alert" comment that explains the discussion?

Yes, sure. I'd like to do more testing to make sure filtering out
SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_APIC_ACCESSES is enough for other Hyper-V
versions too (who knows how many bugs are there :-)

-- 
Vitaly