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]

Date:   Thu, 9 Apr 2020 17:17:32 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/kvm: Disable KVM_ASYNC_PF_SEND_ALWAYS

On 09/04/20 17:03, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> No, I think we wouldn't use a paravirt #VE at this point, we would
>> use the real thing if available.
>> 
>> It would still be possible to switch from the IST to the main
>> kernel stack before writing 0 to the reentrancy word.
> 
> Almost but not quite. We do this for NMI-from-usermode, and it’s
> ugly. But we can’t do this for NMI-from-kernel or #VE-from-kernel
> because there might not be a kernel stack.  Trying to hack around
> this won’t be pretty.
> 
> Frankly, I think that we shouldn’t even try to report memory failure
> to the guest if it happens with interrupts off. Just kill the guest
> cleanly and keep it simple. Or inject an intentionally unrecoverable
> IST exception.

But it would be nice to use #VE for all host-side page faults, not just
for memory failure.

So the solution would be the same as for NMIs, duplicating the stack
frame and patching the outer handler's stack from the recursive #VE
(https://lwn.net/Articles/484932/).  It's ugly but it's a known ugliness.

Paolo