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]

Date:   Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:55:58 +0800
From:   Chenyi Qiang <chenyi.qiang@...el.com>
To:     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>,
        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 1/27/2021 2:01 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 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)?
> 

In current design for PKS, the PMEM stray write protection is the only 
implemented use case, and PKRS is only temporarily changed during 
specific code paths. Thus reads/writes to MSR is not so frequent, I think.

> 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.
> 


I pass through the PKRS and enable the entry/exit controls when PKS is 
supported, and just want to narrow down the window of MSR switch during 
the VMX transition. But yeah, I should also consider the enabling status 
of guest PKS according to CR4.PKS, will fix it in next version.

> Paolo
>