linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] KVM: x86: implement KVM_{GET|SET}_TSC

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: <CAOQ_QsggH=RaPbiOTGjDviKUCa0r4YgJjLsP7ghUGbcVtr2YJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Dec 2020 12:13:12 -0600
From:   Oliver Upton <oupton@...gle.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
        kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] KVM: x86: implement KVM_{GET|SET}_TSC_STATE

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 12:05 PM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/12/20 18:59, Oliver Upton wrote:
> > However, I don't believe we can assume the guest's TSCs to be synchronized,
> > even if sane guests will never touch them. In this case, I think a per-vCPU
> > ioctl is still warranted, allowing userspace to get at the guest CPU adjust
> > component of Thomas' equation below (paraphrased):
> >
> >          TSC guest CPU = host tsc base + guest base offset + guest CPU adjust
>
> Right now that would be:
>
> - KVM_GET_TSC_STATE (vm) returns host tsc base + guest base offset (plus
> the associated time)
>
> - KVM_GET_MSR *without* KVM_X86_QUIRK_TSC_HOST_ACCESS for guest CPU adjust
>
> and the corresponding SET ioctls.  What am *I* missing?
>
> > Alternatively, a write from userspace to the guest's IA32_TSC_ADJUST with
> > KVM_X86_QUIRK_TSC_HOST_ACCESS could have the same effect, but that seems to be
> > problematic for a couple reasons. First, depending on the guest's CPUID the
> > TSC_ADJUST MSR may not even be available, meaning that the guest could've used
> > IA32_TSC to adjust the TSC (eww).
>
> Indeed, the host should always be able to read/write IA32_TSC and
> IA32_TSC_ADJUST.

So long as it is guaranteed that guest manipulations of IA32_TSC are
reflected in IA32_TSC_ADJUST even if it isn't in the guest's CPUID,
then this seems OK. I think having clear documentation on this subject
is also necessary, as we're going to rely on the combination of
KVM_{GET,SET}_TSC_STATE, disabling KVM_X86_QUIRK_TSC_HOST_ACCESS, and
userspace reading/writing a possibly hidden MSR to pull this off
right.

--
Thanks,
Oliver

> Thanks,
>
> Paolo
>
> > Second, userspace replaying writes to IA32_TSC
> > (in the case IA32_TSC_ADJUST doesn't exist for the guest) seems_very_
> > unlikely to work given all the magic handling that KVM does for
> > writes to it.
> >
> > Is this roughly where we are or have I entirely missed the mark?:-)
>