[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200715092638.GJ16200@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 11:26:38 +0200
From: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
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
Hi Kees,
thanks for your reviews!
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 06:40:30PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> Eek, no. MSR_IA32_MISC_ENABLE_XD_DISABLE needs to be cleared very early
> during CPU startup; this can't just be skipped.
That MSR is Intel-only, right? The boot-path installed here is only used
for SEV-ES guests, running on AMD systems, so this MSR is not even
accessed during boot on those VMs.
The alternative is to set up exception handling prior to calling
verify_cpu, including segments, stack and IDT. Given that verify_cpu()
does not add much value to SEV-ES guests, I'd like to avoid adding this
complexity.
> Also, is UNWIND_HINT_EMPTY needed for the new target?
Yes, I think it is, will add it in the next version.
Regards,
Joerg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists