linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 2/7] KVM: VMX: Expose IA32

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: <62f5f5ba-cbe9-231d-365a-80a656208e37@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jan 2021 19:01:55 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Chenyi Qiang <chenyi.qiang@...el.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/7] KVM: VMX: Expose IA32_PKRS MSR

On 07/08/20 10:48, Chenyi Qiang wrote:
> +{
> +	struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu);
> +	unsigned long *msr_bitmap = vmx->vmcs01.msr_bitmap;
> +	bool pks_supported = guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_PKS);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * set intercept for PKRS when the guest doesn't support pks
> +	 */
> +	vmx_set_intercept_for_msr(msr_bitmap, MSR_IA32_PKRS, MSR_TYPE_RW, !pks_supported);
> +
> +	if (pks_supported) {
> +		vm_entry_controls_setbit(vmx, VM_ENTRY_LOAD_IA32_PKRS);
> +		vm_exit_controls_setbit(vmx, VM_EXIT_LOAD_IA32_PKRS);
> +	} else {
> +		vm_entry_controls_clearbit(vmx, VM_ENTRY_LOAD_IA32_PKRS);
> +		vm_exit_controls_clearbit(vmx, VM_EXIT_LOAD_IA32_PKRS);
> +	}

Is the guest expected to do a lot of reads/writes to the MSR (e.g. at 
every context switch)?

Even if this is the case, the MSR intercepts and the entry/exit controls 
should only be done if CR4.PKS=1.  If the guest does not use PKS, KVM 
should behave as if these patches did not exist.

Paolo