linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/kvm: Disable KVM_ASYNC_PF_SEND

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: <87wo7v8g4j.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Sun, 08 Mar 2020 08:23:08 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/kvm: Disable KVM_ASYNC_PF_SEND_ALWAYS

Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> writes:
>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 7:47 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>>> The host knows exactly when it injects a async PF and it can store CR2
>>> and reason of that async PF in flight.
>>>
>>> On the next VMEXIT it checks whether apf_reason is 0. If apf_reason is 0
>>> then it knows that the guest has read CR2 and apf_reason. All good
>>> nothing to worry about.
>>>
>>> If not it needs to be careful.
>>>
>>> As long as the apf_reason of the last async #PF is not cleared by the
>>> guest no new async #PF can be injected. That's already correct because
>>> in that case IF==0 which prevents a nested async #PF.
>>>
>>> If MCE, NMI trigger a real pagefault then the #PF injection needs to
>>> clear apf_reason and set the correct CR2. When that #PF returns then the
>>> old CR2 and apf_reason need to be restored.
>>
>> How is the host supposed to know when the #PF returns?  Intercepting
>> IRET sounds like a bad idea and, in any case, is not actually a
>> reliable indication that #PF returned.
>
> The host does not care about the IRET. It solely has to check whether
> apf_reason is 0 or not. That way it knows that the guest has read CR2
> and apf_reason.

Bah. I'm a moron. Of course it needs to trap the IRET of the #PF in
order to restore CR2 and apf_reason. Alternatively it could trap the CR2
read of #PF, but yes that's all nasty.

Thanks,

        tglx