linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] x86: vmx: virtualize split lock detection

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: <20200204053552.GA31665@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Feb 2020 21:35:52 -0800
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To:     Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, x86@...nel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] x86: vmx: virtualize split lock detection

On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 10:52:01AM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> On 2/4/2020 5:42 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 11:16:08PM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> >>
> >>Only when host is sld_off, can guest control the hardware value of
> >>MSR_TEST_CTL, i.e., KVM loads guest's value into hardware when vcpu is
> >>running.

...

> Right, SLD is exposed to the guest only when host is sld_off makes thing
> much simpler. But this seems only meaning for using guest for debugging or
> testing?

Ah, I misunderstood.  I thought the above quote was saying SLD would be
exposed to the guest if it's off in the host, i.e. intended only to reword
the changelog.

Per our offline discussion:

  sld_fatal - MSR_TEST_CTL.SDL is forced on and is sticky from the guest's
              perspective (so the guest can detect a forced fatal mode).

  sld_warn - SLD is exposed to the guest.  MSR_TEST_CTL.SDL is left on
             until an #AC is intercepted with MSR_TEST_CTL.SDL=0 in the
             guest, at which point normal sld_warn rules apply.  If a vCPU
             associated with the task does VM-Enter with MSR_TEST_CTL.SDL=1,
             TIF_SLD is reset and the cycle begins anew.

  sld_off - When set by the guest, MSR_TEST_CTL.SLD is set on VM-Entry
            and cleared on VM-Exit.

Side topic, this means we need more than is_split_lock_detect_enabled(),
but it's probably still a good idea to hide the enum, e.g. have
is_sld_enabled() and is_sld_fatal() wrappers.
 
> >Reiterating everything that was implemented in previous patches does more
> >harm than good.

...

> >>@@ -1934,6 +1960,15 @@ static int vmx_set_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
> >>  	u32 index;
> >>  	switch (msr_index) {
> >>+	case MSR_TEST_CTRL:
> >>+		if (!msr_info->host_initiated &&
> >>+		    (!guest_has_feature_split_lock_detect(vcpu) ||
> >>+		     data & ~vmx_msr_test_ctrl_valid_bits(vcpu)))
> >>+			return 1;
> >>+		if (data & MSR_TEST_CTRL_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT)
> >>+			vmx->disable_split_lock_detect = false;
> >
> >Pretty sure disable_split_lock_detect won't exist, but if it does, don't
> >reuse it for emulating guest behavior.  Keep the two things separate, i.e.
> >use vmx->msr_test_ctrl to track guest state and use the disable_sld to
> >track when the feature has been disabled for an ignorant guest.
> 
> My thought was that when both host and guest are sld_warn.
> If there is a split lock in guest user space,
>  1. #AC trapped in kvm, and re-injected to guest due to guest's MSR bit set;
>  2. Guest clears MSR bit but hardware bit not cleared, re-execute the
> instruction
>  3. #AC trapped again, vmx->disable_sld set to true, vm-enter to guest with
> hardware MSR bit cleared, re-execute the instruction
>  4. After guest user space application finishes/ or scheduled, guest set MSR
> bit, here we'd better clear vmx->disable_sld, otherwise hardware MSR bit
> keeps cleared for this vcpu thread.

Ya, all that works.  But I don't think KVM needs to context switch
MSR_TEST_CTRL in any mode except sld_off.  For sld_fatal, it's simply on.
For sld_warn, it's only disabled when TIF_SLD=1, i.e. after a warning #AC.

I suppose there's a corner case where userspace is multiplexing vCPUs on
tasks, in which case we could end up with TIF_SLD=1 and MSR_TEST_CTRL.SLD=1.
KVM still doesn't need a separate flag, e.g.:

        if (static_cpu_has(...) && vmx->msr_test_control) {
                if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SLD))
                        sld_turn_back_on();
                else if (!is_split_lock_detect_enabled())
                        wrmsrl(MSR_TEST_CTL,
                               this_cpu_read(msr_test_ctl_val) |
                               vmx->msr_test_ctl);
	}

        __vmx_vcpu_run();

        if (static_cpu_has(...) && vmx->msr_test_control &&
            !is_split_lock_detect_enabled())
                wrmsrl(MSR_TEST_CTL, this_cpu_read(msr_test_ctl_val));




> Also, this makes a difference for guest user space application that when it
> scheduled out then scheduled in, the MSR bit is set again while in bare
> metal it keeps cleared. That's why I use pr_warn_ratelimited() in #AC
> interceptor.