linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] kvm: x86: Emulate MSR IA32_CORE

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: <20200211123821.GO14914@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:38:21 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] kvm: x86: Emulate MSR IA32_CORE_CAPABILITIES

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 07:52:13PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 1:37 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 05:19:26PM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> >
> > > > > + case MSR_IA32_CORE_CAPS:
> > > > > +         if (!msr_info->host_initiated)
> > > >
> > > > Shouldn't @data be checked against kvm_get_core_capabilities()?
> > >
> > > Maybe it's for the case that userspace might have the ability to emulate SLD
> > > feature? And we usually let userspace set whatever it wants, e.g.,
> > > ARCH_CAPABILITIES.
> >
> > If the 'sq_misc.split_lock' event is sufficiently accurate, I suppose
> > the host could use that to emulate the feature at the cost of one
> > counter used.
> 
> I would be impressed if the event were to fire before executing the
> offending split lock.  Wouldn't the best possible result be for it to
> fire with RIP pointing to the *next* instruction?  This seems like it
> could be quite confusing to a guest.

True; and I see no indication the event is PEBS capable, so even that is
pushing it.

However, it's virt; isn't that confused per definition? ;-))