[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dfce335fefe043868301bacf57120759@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 17:35:29 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"Christopherson, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
CC: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Tom Lendacky" <thomas.lendacky@....com>, Pu Wen <puwen@...on.cn>,
"Stephen Hemminger" <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>,
Dirk Hohndel <dirkhh@...are.com>,
Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
Tony W Wang-oc <TonyWWang-oc@...oxin.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
"Mallick, Asit K" <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
Gordon Tetlow <gordon@...lows.org>,
David Kaplan <David.Kaplan@....com>
Subject: RE: TDX #VE in SYSCALL gap (was: [RFD] x86: Curing the exception and
syscall trainwreck in hardware)
> > Or malicious hypervisor action, and that's a problem.
> >
> > Suppose the hypervisor remaps a GPA used in the SYSCALL gap (e.g. the
> > actual SYSCALL text or the first memory it accesses -- I don't have a
> > TDX spec so I don't know the details).
Is it feasible to defend against a malicious (or buggy) hypervisor?
Obviously, we can't leave holes that guests can exploit. But the hypervisor
can crash the system no matter how clever TDX is.
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists