linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: SVM: Add a dedicated INVD intercept routine

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: <12be5ce2-2caf-ce8a-01f1-9254ca698849@amd.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Sep 2020 15:40:00 -0500
From:   Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        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>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: SVM: Add a dedicated INVD intercept routine

On 9/23/20 3:32 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 03:27:39PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
>>
>> The INVD instruction intercept performs emulation. Emulation can't be done
>> on an SEV guest because the guest memory is encrypted.
>>
>> Provide a dedicated intercept routine for the INVD intercept. Within this
>> intercept routine just skip the instruction for an SEV guest, since it is
>> emulated as a NOP anyway.
>>
>> Fixes: 1654efcbc431 ("KVM: SVM: Add KVM_SEV_INIT command")
>> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
>> index c91acabf18d0..332ec4425d89 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
>> @@ -2183,6 +2183,17 @@ static int iret_interception(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
>>  	return 1;
>>  }
>>  
>> +static int invd_interception(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
>> +{
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Can't do emulation on an SEV guest and INVD is emulated
>> +	 * as a NOP, so just skip the instruction.
>> +	 */
>> +	return (sev_guest(svm->vcpu.kvm))
>> +		? kvm_skip_emulated_instruction(&svm->vcpu)
>> +		: kvm_emulate_instruction(&svm->vcpu, 0);
> 
> Is there any reason not to do kvm_skip_emulated_instruction() for both SEV
> and legacy?  VMX has the same odd kvm_emulate_instruction() call, but AFAICT
> that's completely unecessary, i.e. VMX can also convert to a straight skip.

You could, I just figured I'd leave the legacy behavior just in case. Not
that I can think of a reason that behavior would ever change.

Thanks,
Tom

> 
>> +}
>> +
>>  static int invlpg_interception(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
>>  {
>>  	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_DECODEASSISTS))
>> @@ -2774,7 +2785,7 @@ static int (*const svm_exit_handlers[])(struct vcpu_svm *svm) = {
>>  	[SVM_EXIT_RDPMC]			= rdpmc_interception,
>>  	[SVM_EXIT_CPUID]			= cpuid_interception,
>>  	[SVM_EXIT_IRET]                         = iret_interception,
>> -	[SVM_EXIT_INVD]                         = emulate_on_interception,
>> +	[SVM_EXIT_INVD]                         = invd_interception,
>>  	[SVM_EXIT_PAUSE]			= pause_interception,
>>  	[SVM_EXIT_HLT]				= halt_interception,
>>  	[SVM_EXIT_INVLPG]			= invlpg_interception,
>> -- 
>> 2.28.0
>>