[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200403172129.GE2701@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 10:21:29 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
"Kenneth R. Crudup" <kenny@...ix.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"jannh@...gle.com" <jannh@...gle.com>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] x86,module: Detect VMX modules and disable
Split-Lock-Detect
On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 04:48:35PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 2020, at 9:40 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 09:25:55AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 06:12:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 09:01:56AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 05:21:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 04:35:00PM +0200, Jessica Yu wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> I wonder if it would make sense then to limit the text scans to just
> >>>>>> out-of-tree modules (i.e., missing the intree modinfo flag)?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It would; didn't know there was one.
> >>>>
> >>>> Rather than scanning modules at all, what about hooking native_write_cr4()
> >>>> to kill SLD if CR4.VMXE is toggled on and the caller didn't increment a
> >>>> "sld safe" counter?
> >>>
> >>> And then you're hoping that the module uses that and not:
> >>>
> >>> asm volatile ("mov %0, cr4" :: "r" (val));
> >>>
> >>> I think I feel safer with the scanning to be fair. Also with the intree
> >>> hint on, we can extend the scanning for out-of-tree modules for more
> >>> dodgy crap we really don't want modules to do, like for example the
> >>> above.
> >>
> >> Ya, that's the big uknown. But wouldn't they'd already be broken in the
> >> sense that they'd corrupt the CR4 shadow? E.g. setting VMXE without
> >> updating cpu_tlbstate.cr4 would result in future in-kernel writes to CR4
> >> attempting to clear CR4.VMXE post-VMXON, which would #GP.
> >
> > Sadly the CR4 shadow is exported, so they can actually fix that up :/
>
> I do not think that Sean’s idea would work for VMware.
Well phooey.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists