linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 70/70] x86/sev-es: Add NMI state tracking

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, 19 Mar 2020 20:26:54 +0100
From:   Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 70/70] x86/sev-es: Add NMI state tracking

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:40:39AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
 
> Nope.  A nested NMI will reset the interrupted NMI's return frame to
> cause it to run again when it's done.  I don't think this will have
> any real interaction with #VC.  There's no longjmp() here.

Ahh, so I misunderstood that part, in this case your proposal of sending
the NMI-complete message right at the beginning of do_nmi() should work
just fine. I will test this and see how it works out.

> I certainly *like* preventing nesting, but I don't think we really
> want a whole alternate NMI path just for a couple of messed-up AMD
> generations.  And the TF trick is not so pretty either.

Indeed, if it could be avoided, it should.

> 
> > > This causes us to pop the NMI frame off the stack.  Assuming the NMI
> > > restart logic is invoked (which is maybe impossible?), we get #DB,
> > > which presumably is actually delivered.  And we end up on the #DB
> > > stack, which might already have been in use, so we have a potential
> > > increase in nesting.  Also, #DB may be called from an unexpected
> > > context.
> >
> > An SEV-ES hypervisor is required to intercept #DB, which means that the
> > #DB exception actually ends up being a #VC exception. So it will not end
> > up on the #DB stack.
> 
> With your patch set, #DB doesn't seem to end up on the #DB stack either.

Right, it does not use the #DB stack or shift-ist stuff. Maybe it
should, is this needed for anything else than making entry code
debugable by kgdb?

Regards,

	Joerg