linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/cpuid: Exclude unpermitted xfeatures for vcpu->arch.guest_supported

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]

Date:   Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:27:47 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>
Cc:     "Liu, Jing2" <jing2.liu@...el.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Zhong, Yang" <yang.zhong@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/cpuid: Exclude unpermitted xfeatures for
 vcpu->arch.guest_supported_xcr0

On 1/25/22 02:54, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> The extra complication is that arch_prctl(ARCH_REQ_XCOMP_GUEST_PERM)
>> changes what host userspace can/can't do.  It would be easier if we
>> could just say that KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID returns "the most" that
>> userspace can do, but we already have the contract that userspace can
>> take KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID and pass it straight to KVM_SET_CPUID2.
>>
>> Therefore,  KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID must limit its returned values to
>> what has already been enabled.
>>
>> While reviewing the QEMU part of AMX support (this morning), I also
>> noticed that there is no equivalent for guest permissions of
>> ARCH_GET_XCOMP_SUPP.  This needs to know KVM's supported_xcr0, so it's
>> probably best realized as a new KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION rather than as an
>> arch_prctl.
>>
> Would that lead to a weird situation where although KVM says no support
> of guest permissions while the user can still request them via prctl()?

This is already the case for the current implementation of 
KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID.

Paolo

> I wonder whether it's cleaner to do it still via prctl() if we really want to
> enhance this part. But as you said then it needs a mechanism to know
> KVM's supported_xcr0 (and if KVM is not loaded then no guest permission
> support at all)...