linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 10/11] x86/tdx: Don't write CSTAR MSR on Intel

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: <87r1cn65qy.ffs@tglx>
Date:   Thu, 14 Oct 2021 16:27:49 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        x86@...nel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, Deep Shah <sdeep@...are.com>,
        VMware Inc <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Cc:     Peter H Anvin <hpa@...or.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 10/11] x86/tdx: Don't write CSTAR MSR on Intel

On Thu, Oct 14 2021 at 06:47, Andi Kleen wrote:

>>> -	wrmsrl(MSR_CSTAR, (unsigned long)entry_SYSCALL_compat);
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * CSTAR is not needed on Intel because it doesn't support
>>> +	 * 32bit SYSCALL, but only SYSENTER. On a TDX guest
>>> +	 * it leads to a #GP.
>> Sigh. Above you write it raises #VE, but now it's #GP !?!
>
>
> The unhandled #VE trap is handled like a #GP, which is then caught by 
> the kernel wrmsr code.

That's completely irrelevant because that's an implementation detail of
the #VE handler. It raises #VE in the first place and that's unwanted no
matter what the #VE handler does with it. It could just pretent that
it's fine and move on.

Thanks,

        tglx