linux-kernel - Re: Thoughts of AMX KVM support based on latest kernel

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: <D93C093C-8420-45DA-99F5-0A5318ADBBEF@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Nov 2021 23:17:42 +0000
From:   "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
CC:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Liu, Jing2" <jing2.liu@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
        "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        "Cooper, Andrew" <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Thoughts of AMX KVM support based on latest kernel

On Nov 17, 2021, at 4:53 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> On 11/17/21 11:15, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> We are not sure whether such trick is worthwhile, since a sane
>> guest shouldn't set XFD[AMX]=1 before storing the AMX state. This
>> is why we want to seek SDM change to mark out that the software
>> should not assume XTILEDATA is still valid when XFD[AMX]=1.
> 
> Okay, I just don't want it to be called out as virtualization specific.
> 
> It doesn't have to happen in current processors, but it should be architecturally valid behavior to clear the processor's state as soon as a bit in XFD is set to 1.
> 
> Paolo
> 

We recommend that "system software initialize AMX state _before_ doing so" (below). Also, I think what the “creative” guest is doing is "lazy restore”, and "This approach will not operate correctly for a variety of reasons."

https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/c5/15/architecture-instruction-set-extensions-programming-reference.pdf

3.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SYSTEM SOFTWARE

System software may disable use of Intel AMX by clearing XCR0[18:17], by clearing CR4.OSXSAVE, or by setting
IA32_XFD[18]. It is recommended that system software initialize AMX state (e.g., by executing TILERELEASE)
before doing so. This is because maintaining AMX state in a non-initialized state may have negative power and performance implications.

System software should not use XFD to implement a “lazy restore” approach to management of the XTILEDATA
state component. This approach will not operate correctly for a variety of reasons. One is that the LDTILECFG and TILERELEASE instructions initialize XTILEDATA and do not cause an #NM exception. Another is that an execution of XSAVE by a user thread will save XTILEDATA as initialized instead of the data expected by the user thread.

--- 
Jun