linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/split_lock: Don't write MSR_TEST

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:   Sat, 6 Jun 2020 10:51:06 +0800
From:   Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        x86@...nel.org
Cc:     "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/split_lock: Don't write MSR_TEST_CTRL on CPUs that
 aren't whitelisted

On 6/6/2020 3:26 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Choo! Choo!  All aboard the Split Lock Express, with direct service to
> Wreckage!
> 
> Skip split_lock_verify_msr() if the CPU isn't whitelisted as a possible
> SLD-enabled CPU model to avoid writing MSR_TEST_CTRL.  MSR_TEST_CTRL
> exists, and is writable, on many generations of CPUs.  Writing the MSR,
> even with '0', can result in bizarre, undocumented behavior.
> 
> This fixes a crash on Haswell when resuming from suspend with a live KVM
> guest.  Because APs use the standard SMP boot flow for resume, they will
> go through split_lock_init() and the subsequent RDMSR/WRMSR sequence,
> which runs even when sld_state==sld_off to ensure SLD is disabled.  On
> Haswell (at least, my Haswell), writing MSR_TEST_CTRL with '0' will
> succeed and _may_ take the SMT _sibling_ out of VMX root mode.
> 
> When KVM has an active guest, KVM performs VMXON as part of CPU onlining
> (see kvm_starting_cpu()).  Because SMP boot is serialized, the resulting
> flow is effectively:
> 
>    on_each_ap_cpu() {
>       WRMSR(MSR_TEST_CTRL, 0)
>       VMXON
>    }
> 
> As a result, the WRMSR can disable VMX on a different CPU that has
> already done VMXON.  This ultimately results in a #UD on VMPTRLD when
> KVM regains control and attempt run its vCPUs.
> 
> The above voodoo was confirmed by reworking KVM's VMXON flow to write
> MSR_TEST_CTRL prior to VMXON, and to serialize the sequence as above.
> Further verification of the insanity was done by redoing VMXON on all
> APs after the initial WRMSR->VMXON sequence.  The additional VMXON,
> which should VM-Fail, occasionally succeeded, and also eliminated the
> unexpected #UD on VMPTRLD.
> 
> The damage done by writing MSR_TEST_CTRL doesn't appear to be limited
> to VMX, e.g. after suspend with an active KVM guest, subsequent reboots
> almost always hang (even when fudging VMXON), a #UD on a random Jcc was
> observed, suspend/resume stability is qualitatively poor, and so on and
> so forth.
> 

I'm wondering if all those side-effects of MSR_TEST_CTRL exist on CPUs 
have SLD feature, have you ever tested on a SLD capable CPU?