linux-kernel - RE: [patch 5/6] x86/fpu: Provide fpu_update_guest

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 16 Dec 2021 09:59:58 +0000
From:   "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@...el.com>,
        "quintela@...hat.com" <quintela@...hat.com>
CC:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
        Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Zhong, Yang" <yang.zhong@...el.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
        "Zeng, Guang" <guang.zeng@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [patch 5/6] x86/fpu: Provide fpu_update_guest_xcr0/xfd()

> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2021 5:35 PM
> 
> On Thu, Dec 16 2021 at 01:04, Kevin Tian wrote:
> >> From: Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@...il.com> On Behalf Of Paolo
> Bonzini
> >> Considering that in practice all Linux guests with AMX would have XFD
> >> passthrough (because if there's no prctl, Linux keeps AMX disabled in
> >> XFD), this removes the need to do all the #NM handling too.  Just make
> >
> > #NM trap is for XFD_ERR thus still required.
> >
> >> XFD passthrough if it can ever be set to a nonzero value.  This costs an
> >> RDMSR per vmexit even if neither the host nor the guest ever use AMX.
> >
> > Well, we can still trap WRMSR(XFD) in the start and then disable
> interception
> > after the 1st trap.
> 
> If we go for buffer expansion at vcpu_create() or CPUID2 then I think
> you don't need a trap at all.
> 
> XFD_ERR:  Always 0 on the host. Guest state needs to be preserved on
>           VMEXIT and restored on VMENTER
> 
> This can be done simply with the MSR entry/exit controls. No trap
> required neither for #NM for for XFD_ERR.
> 
> VMENTER loads guest state. VMEXIT saves guest state and loads host state
> (0)

This implies three MSR operations for every vm-exit.

With trap we only need one RDMSR in host #NM handler, one 
RDMSR/one WRMSR exit in guest #NM handler, which are both rare.
plus one RDMSR/one WRMSR per vm-exit only if saved xfd_err is 
non-zero which is again rare.

> 
> XFD:     Always guest state
> 
> So VMENTER does nothing and VMEXIT either saves guest state and the sync
> function uses the automatically saved value or you keep the sync
> function which does the rdmsrl() as is.
> 

Yes, this is the 3rd open that I asked in another reply. The only restriction
with this approach is that the sync cost is added also for legacy OS which
doesn't touch xfd at all. 

Thanks
Kevin