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: <b175f08d-2930-158d-8543-fe6a7f6aaf12@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:34:29 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     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 3:28 PM, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> 
> On 3/31/21 3:11 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> 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.
> But I think there are cases (like MCE) where SEAM does not disable
> them because there will be future support for it. We should at-least
> suppress such features in kernel.

Specifics, please.

The hardware (and VMMs and SEAM) have ways of telling the guest kernel
what is supported: CPUID.  If it screws up, and the guest gets an
unexpected #VE, so be it.

We don't have all kinds of crazy handling in the kernel's #UD handler
just in case a CPU mis-enumerates a feature and we get a #UD.  We have
to trust the underlying hardware to be sane.  If it isn't, we die a
horrible death as fast as possible.  Why should TDX be any different?