linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] KVM: x86: XSS and XCR0 fixes

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: <YfGJWNVuFYZ8kl2I@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Jan 2022 17:48:08 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
        Like Xu <likexu@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] KVM: x86: XSS and XCR0 fixes

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 1/26/22 18:22, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > For convenience, Like's patch split up and applied on top of Xiaoyao.
> > Tagged all for @stable, probably want to (retroactively?) get Xiaoyao's
> > patch tagged too?
> > Like Xu (2):
> >    KVM: x86: Update vCPU's runtime CPUID on write to MSR_IA32_XSS
> >    KVM: x86: Sync the states size with the XCR0/IA32_XSS at, any time
> > 
> > Xiaoyao Li (1):
> >    KVM: x86: Keep MSR_IA32_XSS unchanged for INIT
> > 
> >   arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 6 +++---
> >   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > 
> > base-commit: e2e83a73d7ce66f62c7830a85619542ef59c90e4
> 
> Queued, though I'll note that I kinda disagree with the stable@ marking of
> patch 1 (and therefore with the patch order) as it has no effect in
> practice.

Hmm, that's not a given, is it?  E.g. the guest can configure XSS early on and
then expect the configured value to live across INIT-SIPI-SIPI.  I agree it's
highly unlikely for any guest to actually do that, but I don't like assuming all
guests will behave a certain way.