linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 06/13] KVM: x86/vmx: Save/Restore host MSR_ARCH_LBR

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALMp9eROgWVBe1NuqD46xbgXHedgAFW1EMFX5zW-_Ee5enHmnw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Jul 2021 10:00:25 -0700
From:   Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
To:     Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>
Cc:     Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        seanjc@...gle.com, vkuznets@...hat.com, wei.w.wang@...el.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "kan.liang@...ux.intel.com" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/13] KVM: x86/vmx: Save/Restore host MSR_ARCH_LBR_CTL state

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 2:49 AM Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 13/7/2021 1:45 am, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 10:20 AM Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 3:19 AM Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 12/7/2021 5:53 pm, Yang Weijiang wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 04:41:30PM -0700, Jim Mattson wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 3:54 PM Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 2:51 AM Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@...el.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If host is using MSR_ARCH_LBR_CTL then save it before vm-entry
> >>>>>>> and reload it after vm-exit.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't see anything being done here "before VM-entry" or "after
> >>>>>> VM-exit." This code seems to be invoked on vcpu_load and vcpu_put.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In any case, I don't see why this one MSR is special. It seems that if
> >>>>>> the host is using the architectural LBR MSRs, then *all* of the host
> >>>>>> architectural LBR MSRs have to be saved on vcpu_load and restored on
> >>>>>> vcpu_put. Shouldn't  kvm_load_guest_fpu() and kvm_put_guest_fpu() do
> >>>>>> that via the calls to kvm_save_current_fpu(vcpu->arch.user_fpu) and
> >>>>>> restore_fpregs_from_fpstate(&vcpu->arch.user_fpu->state)?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It does seem like there is something special about IA32_LBR_DEPTH, though...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Section 7.3.1 of the Intel® Architecture Instruction Set Extensions
> >>>>> and Future Features Programming Reference
> >>>>> says, "IA32_LBR_DEPTH is saved by XSAVES, but it is not written by
> >>>>> XRSTORS in any circumstance." It seems like that would require some
> >>>>> special handling if the host depth and the guest depth do not match.
> >>>> In our vPMU design, guest depth is alway kept the same as that of host,
> >>>> so this won't be a problem. But I'll double check the code again, thanks!
> >>>
> >>> KVM only exposes the host's depth value to the user space
> >>> so the guest can only use the same depth as the host.
> >>
> >> The allowed depth supplied by KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID isn't enforced,
> >> though, is it?
>
> Like other hardware dependent features, the functionality will not
> promise to work properly if the guest uses the unsupported CPUID.

It's fine if it doesn't work in the guest, but can't a guest with the
wrong depth prevent the host LBRs from being reloaded when switching
back to the host state? It's definitely not okay for an ill-configured
guest to break host functionality.

> >
> > Also, doesn't this end up being a major constraint on future
> > platforms? Every host that this vCPU will ever run on will have to use
> > the same LBR depth as the host on which it was started.
> >
>
> As a first step, we made the guest LBR feature only available for the
> "migratable=off" user space, which is why we intentionally did not add
> MSR_ARCH_LBR_* stuff to msrs_to_save_all[] in earlier versions.

We have no such concept in our user space. Features that are not
migratable should clearly be identified as such by an appropriate KVM
API. At present, I don't believe there is such an API.

> But hopefully, we may make it at least migratable for Arch LBR.
>
> I'm personally curious about the cost of using XSAVES to swicth
> guest lbr msrs during vmx transaction, and if the cost is unacceptable,
> we may ask the perf host to adjust different depths for threads.
>
>