linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] 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: <YelPnGM4kONm7ZQa@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jan 2022 12:03:40 +0000
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com, alexandru.elisei@....com,
        anup.patel@....com, aou@...s.berkeley.edu, atish.patra@....com,
        bp@...en8.de, catalin.marinas@....com, chenhuacai@...nel.org,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com,
        frederic@...nel.org, gor@...ux.ibm.com, hca@...ux.ibm.com,
        james.morse@....com, jmattson@...gle.com, joro@...tes.org,
        luto@...nel.org, maz@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        nsaenzju@...hat.com, palmer@...belt.com, paulmck@...nel.org,
        paul.walmsley@...ive.com, peterz@...radead.org, seanjc@...gle.com,
        suzuki.poulose@....com, svens@...ux.ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        tsbogend@...ha.franken.de, vkuznets@...hat.com,
        wanpengli@...cent.com, will@...nel.org,
        Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] kvm: fix latent guest entry/exit bugs

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 12:28:09PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 1/19/22 20:22, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > I wonder, is the s390 guest entry/exit*preemptible*  ?
> > 
> > If a timer IRQ can preempt in the middle of the EQS, we wouldn't balance
> > things before a ctx-switch to the idle thread, which would then be able
> > to hit this.
> > 
> > I'll need to go audit the other architectures for similar.
> 
> They don't enable interrupts in the entry/exit path so they should be okay.

True.

So it sounds like for s390 adding an explicit preempt_{disable,enable}() is the
right thing to do. I'll add that and explanatory commentary.

> RISC-V and x86 have an explicit preempt_disable/enable, while MIPS only has
> local_irq_disable/enable.
> 
> (MIPS is a mess of dead code, I have patches to clean it up).

Sure; I haven't wrapped my head around ppc yet, but I assume they keep
interrupts disabled as with the other simple cases.

Thanks,
Mark.