linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/pmu: Don't expose guest LBR if the 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <7599a987-c931-20f1-9441-d86222a4519d@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Aug 2021 10:12:22 -0400
From:   "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/pmu: Don't expose guest LBR if the LBR_SELECT is
 shared per physical core



On 8/9/2021 3:48 AM, Like Xu wrote:
> From: Like Xu <likexu@...cent.com>
> 
> According to Intel SDM, the Last Branch Record Filtering Select Register
> (R/W) is defined as shared per physical core rather than per logical core
> on some older Intel platforms: Silvermont, Airmont, Goldmont and Nehalem.
> 
> To avoid LBR attacks or accidental data leakage, on these specific
> platforms, KVM should not expose guest LBR capability even if HT is
> disabled on the host, considering that the HT state can be dynamically
> changed, yet the KVM capabilities are initialized at module initialisation.
> 
> Fixes: be635e34c284 ("KVM: vmx/pmu: Expose LBR_FMT in the MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES")
> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <likexu@...cent.com>
> ---
>   arch/x86/include/asm/intel-family.h |  1 +
>   arch/x86/kvm/vmx/capabilities.h     | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
>   2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/intel-family.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/intel-family.h
> index 27158436f322..f35c915566e3 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/intel-family.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/intel-family.h
> @@ -119,6 +119,7 @@
>   
>   #define INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_SILVERMONT	0x37 /* Bay Trail, Valleyview */
>   #define INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_SILVERMONT_D	0x4D /* Avaton, Rangely */
> +#define INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_SILVERMONT_X3	0x5D /* X3-C3000 based on Silvermont */


Please submit a separate patch if you want to add a new CPU ID. Also, 
the comments should be platform code name, not the model.

AFAIK, Atom X3 should be SoFIA which is for mobile phone. It's an old 
product. I don't think I enabled it in perf. I have no idea why you want 
to add it here for KVM. If you have a product and want to enable it, I 
guess you may want to enable it for perf first.

Thanks,
Kan

>   #define INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_SILVERMONT_MID	0x4A /* Merriefield */
>   
>   #define INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_AIRMONT		0x4C /* Cherry Trail, Braswell */
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/capabilities.h b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/capabilities.h
> index 4705ad55abb5..ff9596d7112d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/capabilities.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/capabilities.h
> @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
>   #define __KVM_X86_VMX_CAPS_H
>   
>   #include <asm/vmx.h>
> +#include <asm/cpu_device_id.h>
>   
>   #include "lapic.h"
>   
> @@ -376,6 +377,21 @@ static inline bool vmx_pt_mode_is_host_guest(void)
>   	return pt_mode == PT_MODE_HOST_GUEST;
>   }
>   
> +static const struct x86_cpu_id lbr_select_shared_cpu[] = {
> +	X86_MATCH_INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(ATOM_SILVERMONT, NULL),
> +	X86_MATCH_INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(ATOM_SILVERMONT_MID, NULL),
> +	X86_MATCH_INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(ATOM_SILVERMONT_D, NULL),
> +	X86_MATCH_INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(ATOM_SILVERMONT_X3, NULL),
> +	X86_MATCH_INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(ATOM_AIRMONT_MID, NULL),
> +	X86_MATCH_INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(ATOM_GOLDMONT, NULL),
> +	X86_MATCH_INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(ATOM_GOLDMONT_PLUS, NULL),
> +	X86_MATCH_INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(NEHALEM_EP, NULL),
> +	X86_MATCH_INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(NEHALEM, NULL),
> +	X86_MATCH_INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(NEHALEM_G, NULL),
> +	X86_MATCH_INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(NEHALEM_EX, NULL),
> +	{}
> +};
> +
>   static inline u64 vmx_get_perf_capabilities(void)
>   {
>   	u64 perf_cap = 0;
> @@ -383,7 +399,8 @@ static inline u64 vmx_get_perf_capabilities(void)
>   	if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PDCM))
>   		rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES, perf_cap);
>   
> -	perf_cap &= PMU_CAP_LBR_FMT;
> +	if (!x86_match_cpu(lbr_select_shared_cpu))
> +		perf_cap &= PMU_CAP_LBR_FMT;
>   
>   	/*
>   	 * Since counters are virtualized, KVM would support full
>