linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/vPMU: Forbid writing to MSR_F15H_PERF MSRs when guest doesn't have X86_FEATURE_PERFCTR

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d7310ec0-4c4c-0d1c-5725-5377b539344a@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Mar 2021 11:39:51 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Wei Huang <wei.huang2@....com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/vPMU: Forbid writing to MSR_F15H_PERF MSRs when
 guest doesn't have X86_FEATURE_PERFCTR_CORE

On 29/03/21 10:52, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> writes:
> 
>> On 23/03/21 09:45, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>> MSR_F15H_PERF_CTL0-5, MSR_F15H_PERF_CTR0-5 MSRs are only available when
>>> X86_FEATURE_PERFCTR_CORE CPUID bit was exposed to the guest. KVM, however,
>>> allows these MSRs unconditionally because kvm_pmu_is_valid_msr() ->
>>> amd_msr_idx_to_pmc() check always passes and because kvm_pmu_set_msr() ->
>>> amd_pmu_set_msr() doesn't fail.
>>>
>>> In case of a counter (CTRn), no big harm is done as we only increase
>>> internal PMC's value but in case of an eventsel (CTLn), we go deep into
>>> perf internals with a non-existing counter.
>>>
>>> Note, kvm_get_msr_common() just returns '0' when these MSRs don't exist
>>> and this also seems to contradict architectural behavior which is #GP
>>> (I did check one old Opteron host) but changing this status quo is a bit
>>> scarier.
>>
>> Hmm, since these do have a cpuid bit it may not be that scary.
> 
> Well, if you're not scared I can send a patch)

Go ahead.

Paolo