linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] x86/kvm: add max number of vcpus for hyperv emulation

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: <YZZ7Xxg5LEoCb+oK@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Nov 2021 16:12:15 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] x86/kvm: add max number of vcpus for hyperv
 emulation

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 18.11.21 15:49, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > On 17.11.21 21:50, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > > @@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ static struct kvm_vcpu *get_vcpu_by_vpidx(struct kvm *kvm, u32 vpidx)
> > > > >    	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = NULL;
> > > > >    	int i;
> > > > > -	if (vpidx >= KVM_MAX_VCPUS)
> > > > > +	if (vpidx >= min(KVM_MAX_VCPUS, KVM_MAX_HYPERV_VCPUS))
> > > > 
> > > > IMO, this is conceptually wrong.  KVM should refuse to allow Hyper-V to be enabled
> > > > if the max number of vCPUs exceeds what can be supported, or should refuse to create
> > > 
> > > TBH, I wasn't sure where to put this test. Is there a guaranteed
> > > sequence of ioctl()s regarding vcpu creation (or setting the max
> > > number of vcpus) and the Hyper-V enabling?
> > 
> > For better or worse (mostly worse), like all other things CPUID, Hyper-V is a per-vCPU
> > knob.  If KVM can't detect the impossible condition at compile time, kvm_check_cpuid()
> > is probably the right place to prevent enabling Hyper-V on an unreachable vCPU.
> 
> With HYPERV_CPUID_IMPLEMENT_LIMITS already returning the
> supported number of vcpus for the Hyper-V case I'm not sure
> there is really more needed.

Yep, that'll do nicely.

> The problem I'm seeing is that the only thing I can do is to
> let kvm_get_hv_cpuid() not adding the Hyper-V cpuid leaves for
> vcpus > 64. I can't return a failure, because that would
> probably let vcpu creation fail. And this is something we don't
> want, as kvm_get_hv_cpuid() is called even in the case the guest
> doesn't plan to use Hyper-V extensions.

Argh, that thing is annoying.

My vote is still to reject KVM_SET_CPUID{2} if userspace attempts to enable Hyper-V
for a vCPU when the max number of vCPUs exceeds HYPERV_CPUID_IMPLEMENT_LIMITS.  If
userspace parrots back KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID, it will specify KVM as the hypervisor,
i.e. enabling Hyper-V requires deliberate action from userspace.

The non-vCPU version of KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_HV_CPUID is not an issue, e.g. the generic
KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID also reports features that become unsupported if dependent
CPUID features are not enabled by userspace.

The discrepancy with the per-vCPU variant of kvm_get_hv_cpuid() would be unfortunate,
but IMO that ship sailed when the per-vCPU variant was added by commit 2bc39970e932
("x86/kvm/hyper-v: Introduce KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_HV_CPUID").  We can't retroactively
yank that code out, but I don't think we should be overly concerned with keeping it
100% accurate.  IMO it's perfectly fine for KVM to define the output of
KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_HV_CPUID as being garbage if the vCPU cannot possibly support
Hyper-V enlightments.  That situation isn't possible today, so there's no backwards
compatibility to worry about.