linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: emulate reserved nops from 0f/18 to 0f/1f

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: <be7fa327-51b9-1f95-454d-f4f9c15a1b63@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 May 2020 10:06:25 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: emulate reserved nops from 0f/18 to 0f/1f

On 19/05/20 09:55, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> Running arbitrary code under the emulator is problematic anyway with
>> CET, since you won't be checking ENDBR markers or updating the state
>> machine.  So perhaps in addition to what you say we should have a mode
>> where, unless unrestricted guest is disabled, the emulator only accepts
>> I/O, MOV and ALU instructions.
>
> Doh, I forgot all about those pesky ENDBR markers.  I think a slimmed down
> emulator makes sense?

Or just slimmed down opcode tables.

> Tangentially related, isn't the whole fastop thing doomed once CET kernel
> support lands?

Why?  You do need to add endbr markers and some of the fastop handlers
won't fit in 8 bytes, but that should be it.

Paolo