[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202007151244.315DCBAE@keescook>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 12:49:23 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Cfir Cohen <cfir@...gle.com>,
Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Mike Stunes <mstunes@...are.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Martin Radev <martin.b.radev@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 70/75] x86/head/64: Don't call verify_cpu() on
starting APs
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 05:48:56PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> It is actually the CPUID instructions that cause #VC exceptions. The
> MSRs that are accessed on AMD processors are not intercepted in the
> hypervisors this code has been tested on, so these will not cause #VC
> exceptions.
Aaah. I see. Thanks for the details there. So ... can you add a bunch
more comments about why/when the new entry path is being used? I really
don't want to accidentally discover some unrelated refactoring down
the road (in months, years, unrelated to SEV, etc) starts to also skip
verify_cpu() on Intel systems. There had been a lot of BIOSes that set
this MSR to disable NX, and I don't want to repeat that pain: Linux must
never start an Intel CPU with that MSR set. :P
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists