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: <636dd644-8160-645a-ce5a-f4eb344f001c@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:07:52 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     "open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] KVM: x86: never clear irr_pending in
 kvm_apic_update_apicv

On 12/9/21 12:54, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> It is possible that during the AVIC incomplete IPI vmexit,
> its handler will set irr_pending to true,
> but the target vCPU will still see the IRR bit not set,
> due to the apparent lack of memory ordering between CPU's vIRR write
> that is supposed to happen prior to the AVIC incomplete IPI
> vmexit and the write of the irr_pending in that handler.

Are you sure about this?  Store-to-store ordering should be 
guaranteed---if not by the architecture---by existing memory barriers 
between vmrun returning and avic_incomplete_ipi_interception().  For 
example, srcu_read_lock implies an smp_mb().

Even more damning: no matter what internal black magic the processor 
could be using to write to IRR, the processor needs to order the writes 
against reads of IsRunning on processors without the erratum.  That 
would be equivalent to flushing the store buffer, and it would imply 
that the write of vIRR is ordered before the write to irr_pending.

Paolo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ