linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/bugs/multihit: Fix mitigation reporting when KVM is not in use

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: <ba442a51-294e-8624-9a69-5613ff050551@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Jul 2020 12:54:26 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "Gomez Iglesias, Antonio" <antonio.gomez.iglesias@...el.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Anthony Steinhauser <asteinhauser@...gle.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/bugs/multihit: Fix mitigation reporting when KVM is
 not in use

On 7/14/20 12:17 PM, Pawan Gupta wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 07:57:53AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> Let's stick to things which are at least static per reboot.  Checking
>> for X86_FEATURE_VMX or even CONFIG_KVM_INTEL seems like a good stopping
>> point.  "Could this kernel run a naughty guest?"  If so, report
>> "Vulnerable".  It's the same as Meltdown: "Could this kernel run
>> untrusted code?"  If so, report "Vulnerable".
> 
> Thanks, These are good inputs. So what I need to add is a boot time
> check for VMX feature and report "Vulnerable" or "Not
> affected(VMX disabled)".
> 
> Are you suggesting to not change the reporting when KVM deploys the
> "Split huge pages" mitigation? Is this because VMX can still be used by
> other VMMs?
> 
> The current mitigation reporting is very specific to KVM:
> 
> 	- "KVM: Vulnerable"
> 	- "KVM: Mitigation: Split huge pages"
> 
> As the kernel doesn't know about the mitigation state of out-of-tree
> VMMs can we add VMX reporting to always say vulnerable when VMX is
> enabled:
> 
> 	- "VMX: Vulnerable, KVM: Vulnerable"
> 	- "VMX: Vulnerable, KVM: Mitigation: Split huge pages"
> 
> And if VMX is disabled report:
> 
> 	- "VMX: Not affected(VMX disabled)"

I see three inputs and four possible states (sorry for the ugly table,
it was this or a spreadsheet :):

X86_FEATURE_VMX	CONFIG_KVM_*	hpage split  Result	   Reason
	N		x	    x	     Not Affected  No VMX
	Y		N	    x	     Not affected  No KVM
	Y		Y	    Y	     Mitigated	   hpage split
	Y		Y	    N	     Vulnerable

I don't think we should worry about out-of-tree VMX.