linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: X86: Move ignore

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 Jul 2020 17:09:19 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: X86: Move ignore_msrs handling upper the stack

On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:24:40PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 02:22:20PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 08:47:26AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 04:24:34PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > > On 26/06/20 20:18, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > >> Btw, would it be more staightforward to check "vcpu->arch.arch_capabilities &
> > > > >> ARCH_CAP_TSX_CTRL_MSR" rather than "*ebx | (F(RTM) | F(HLE))" even if we want
> > > > >> to have such a fix?
> > > > > Not really, That ends up duplicating the check in vmx_get_msr().  From an
> > > > > emulation perspective, this really is a "guest" access to the MSR, in the
> > > > > sense that it the virtual CPU is in the guest domain, i.e. not a god-like
> > > > > entity that gets to break the rules of emulation.
> > > > 
> > > > But if you wrote a guest that wants to read MSR_IA32_TSX_CTRL, there are
> > > > two choices:
> > > > 
> > > > 1) check ARCH_CAPABILITIES first
> > > > 
> > > > 2) blindly access it and default to 0.
> > > > 
> > > > Both are fine, because we know MSR_IA32_TSX_CTRL has no
> > > > reserved/must-be-one bits.  Calling __kvm_get_msr and checking for an
> > > > invalid MSR through the return value is not breaking the rules of
> > > > emulation, it is "faking" a #GP handler.
> > > 
> > > "guest" was the wrong choice of word.  My point was that, IMO, emulation
> > > should never set host_initiated=true.
> > > 
> > > To me, accessing MSRs with host_initiated is the equivalent of loading a
> > > ucode patch, i.e. it's super duper special stuff that deliberately turns
> > > off all safeguards and can change the fundamental behavior of the (virtual)
> > > CPU.
> > 
> > This seems to be an orthogonal change against what this series tried to do.  We
> > use host_initiated=true in current code, and this series won't change that fact
> > either.  As I mentioned in the other thread, at least the rdmsr warning is
> > ambiguous when it's not initiated from the guest if without this patchset, and
> > this series could address that.
> 
> My argument is that using host_initiated=true is wrong.  
> 
> > > > So I think Peter's patch is fine, but (possibly on top as a third patch)
> > > > __must_check should be added to MSR getters and setters.  Also one
> > > > possibility is to return -EINVAL for invalid MSRs.
> > 
> > Yeah I can add another patch for that.  Also if to repost, I tend to also
> > introduce KVM_MSR_RET_[OK|ERROR] too, which seems to be cleaner when we had
> > KVM_MSR_RET_INVALID.
> > 
> > Any objections before I repost?
> 
> Heh, or perhaps "Any objections that haven't been overruled before I repost?" :-D

Again, using host_initiated or not should be a different issue?  Frankly
speaking, I don't know whether it's an issue or not, but it's different from
what this series wants to do, because it'll be the same before/after this
series. Am I right?

Or, please explain what's the "overruled objection" that you're talking about..

-- 
Peter Xu