linux-kernel - Re: [NAK][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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 10 Aug 2021 11:21:54 +0800
From:   Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>
To:     "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        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: [NAK][PATCH] KVM: x86/pmu: Don't expose guest LBR if the
 LBR_SELECT is shared per physical core

Thank you, Kan.

On 10/8/2021 2:03 am, Liang, Kan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/9/2021 11:08 AM, Like Xu wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 10:12 PM Liang, Kan <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 for your clarification about SoFIA. I'll drop 0x5D check
>> for V2 since we doesn't have host support as you said.
>>
>> Do the other models here and the idea of banning guest LBR make sense to you ?
>>
> 
> For the Atom after Silvermont, I don't think hyper-threading is supported. 
> That's why it's per physical core. I don't think we should disable LBR because 
> of it.

In addition to your clarification below, it makes sense to keep it as it is.

> 
> For Nehalem, it seems possible that the MSR_LBR_SELECT can be overridden if the 
> other logical core has a different configure. But I'm not sure whether it brings 
> any severe problems. Logical core A may miss some LBRs or get extra LBRs, but I 
> don't think LBRs can be leaked to Logical core B. Also, Nehalem is a 13+ year 
> old machine. Not sure how many people still use it.

Allowing one guest to prevent another guest from using the LBR (writing zero
consistently) is quite a serious flaw, but considering that only such an old model
is affected, adding a maintenance burden to KVM here is not a good choice.

> 
> LBR format 0 is also a valid format version, LBR_FORMAT_32. It seems this patch 
> just forces the format to LBR_FORMAT_32 for these machines. It doesn't sound 
> correct.

Sigh, I assume that the platform reporting LBR_FORMAT_32 is older than Nehalem.

> 
> 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
>>>>
>