linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] kvm: fix latent guest entry/exit bugs

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: <6b6b8a2b-202c-8966-b3f7-5ce35cf40a7e@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jan 2022 13:42:26 +0100
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com,
        alexandru.elisei@....com, anup.patel@....com,
        aou@...s.berkeley.edu, atish.patra@....com,
        benh@...nel.crashing.org, bp@...en8.de, catalin.marinas@....com,
        chenhuacai@...nel.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        david@...hat.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com, frederic@...nel.org,
        gor@...ux.ibm.com, hca@...ux.ibm.com, imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com,
        james.morse@....com, jmattson@...gle.com, joro@...tes.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, maz@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        mpe@...erman.id.au, nsaenzju@...hat.com, palmer@...belt.com,
        paulmck@...nel.org, paulus@...ba.org, paul.walmsley@...ive.com,
        seanjc@...gle.com, suzuki.poulose@....com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        tsbogend@...ha.franken.de, vkuznets@...hat.com,
        wanpengli@...cent.com, will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] kvm: fix latent guest entry/exit bugs



Am 18.01.22 um 13:02 schrieb Mark Rutland:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 06:45:36PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 1/14/22 16:19, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> I also think there is another issue here. When an IRQ is taken from SIE, will
>>> user_mode(regs) always be false, or could it be true if the guest userspace is
>>> running? If it can be true I think tha context tracking checks can complain,
>>> and it*might*  be possible to trigger a panic().
>>
>> I think that it would be false, because the guest PSW is in the SIE block
>> and switched on SIE entry and exit, but I might be incorrect.
> 
> Ah; that's the crux of my confusion: I had thought the guest PSW would
> be placed in the regular lowcore *_old_psw slots. From looking at the
> entry asm it looks like the host PSW (around the invocation of SIE) is
> stored there, since that's what the OUTSIDE + SIEEXIT handling is
> checking for.
> 
> Assuming that's correct, I agree this problem doesn't exist, and there's
> only the common RCU/tracing/lockdep management to fix.

Will you provide an s390 patch in your next iteration or shall we then do
one as soon as there is a v2? We also need to look into vsie.c where we
also call sie64a