linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] x86/tdx: Handle MWAIT, MONITOR and WBINVD

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: <d8078f5d-735c-2b0f-98eb-663be2118762@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:11:57 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] x86/tdx: Handle MWAIT, MONITOR and WBINVD

On 3/31/21 3:06 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> I've no objection to a nice message in the #VE handler.  What I'm objecting to
> is sanity checking the CPUID model provided by the TDX module.  If we don't
> trust the TDX module to honor the spec, then there are a huge pile of things
> that are far higher priority than MONITOR/MWAIT.

In other words:  Don't muck with CPUID or the X86_FEATURE at all.  Don't
check it to comply with the spec.  If something doesn't comply, we'll
get a #VE at *SOME* point.  We don't need to do belt-and-suspenders
programming here.

That sounds sane to me.