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  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:   Fri, 14 Feb 2020 08:59:39 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <>
To:     Joerg Roedel <>
Cc:,, Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Dave Hansen <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Thomas Hellstrom <>,
        Jiri Slaby <>,
        Dan Williams <>,
        Tom Lendacky <>,
        Juergen Gross <>,
        Kees Cook <>,,,,
        Joerg Roedel <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 41/62] x86/sev-es: Handle MSR events

On 2/13/20 11:23 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> Yes, investigating this is on the list for future optimizations (besides
> caching CPUID results). My idea is to use alternatives patching for
> this. But the exception handling is needed anyway because #VC
> exceptions happen very early already, basically the first thing after
> setting up a stack is calling verify_cpu(), which uses CPUID.

Ahh, bummer.  How does a guest know that it's running under SEV-ES?
What's the enumeration mechanism if CPUID doesn't "work"?

> The other reason is that things like MMIO and IOIO instructions can't be
> easily patched by alternatives. Those would work with the runtime
> checking you showed above, though.

Is there a reason we can't make a rule that you *must* do MMIO through
an accessor function so we *can* patch them?  I know random drivers
might break the rule, but are SEV-ES guests going to be running random
drivers?  I would think that they mostly if not all want to use virtio.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists