linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: SVM: fix nested PAUSE filtering

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <67ff4a7b7f5c920c370efc11e7190a61a075ec1b.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Sun, 22 May 2022 11:24:59 +0300
From:   Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
        Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: SVM: fix nested PAUSE filtering

On Fri, 2022-05-20 at 16:05 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 5/18/22 09:27, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > To fix this, change the fallback strategy - ignore the guest threshold
> > values, but use/update the host threshold values, instead of using zeros.
> 
> Hmm, now I remember why it was using the guest values.  It's because, if
> the L1 hypervisor specifies COUNT=0 or does not have filtering enabled,
> we need to obey and inject a vmexit on every PAUSE.  So something like this:
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c
> index f209c1ca540c..e6153fd3ae47 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c
> @@ -616,6 +616,8 @@ static void nested_vmcb02_prepare_control(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
>   	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = &svm->vcpu;
>   	struct vmcb *vmcb01 = svm->vmcb01.ptr;
>   	struct vmcb *vmcb02 = svm->nested.vmcb02.ptr;
> +	u32 pause_count12;
> +	u32 pause_thresh12;
>   
>   	/*
>   	 * Filled at exit: exit_code, exit_code_hi, exit_info_1, exit_info_2,
> @@ -671,20 +673,25 @@ static void nested_vmcb02_prepare_control(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
>   	if (!nested_vmcb_needs_vls_intercept(svm))
>   		vmcb02->control.virt_ext |= VIRTUAL_VMLOAD_VMSAVE_ENABLE_MASK;
>   
> +	pause_count12 = svm->pause_filter_enabled ? svm->nested.ctl.pause_filter_count : 0;
> +	pause_thresh12 = svm->pause_threshold_enabled ? svm->nested.ctl.pause_filter_thresh : 0;
>   	if (kvm_pause_in_guest(svm->vcpu.kvm)) {
> -		/* use guest values since host doesn't use them */
> -		vmcb02->control.pause_filter_count =
> -				svm->pause_filter_enabled ?
> -				svm->nested.ctl.pause_filter_count : 0;
> -
> -		vmcb02->control.pause_filter_thresh =
> -				svm->pause_threshold_enabled ?
> -				svm->nested.ctl.pause_filter_thresh : 0;
> +		/* use guest values since host doesn't intercept PAUSE */
> +		vmcb02->control.pause_filter_count = pause_count12;
> +		vmcb02->control.pause_filter_thresh = pause_thresh12;
>   
>   	} else {
> -		/* use host values otherwise */
> +		/* start from host values otherwise */
>   		vmcb02->control.pause_filter_count = vmcb01->control.pause_filter_count;
>   		vmcb02->control.pause_filter_thresh = vmcb01->control.pause_filter_thresh;
> +
> +		/* ... but ensure filtering is disabled if so requested.  */
> +		if (vmcb12_is_intercept(&svm->nested.ctl, INTERCEPT_PAUSE)) {
> +			if (!pause_count12)
> +				vmcb02->control.pause_filter_count = 0;
> +			if (!pause_thresh12)
> +				vmcb02->control.pause_filter_thresh = 0;
> +		}

Makes sense!

I also need to remember to return the '!old' check to the shrink_ple_window,
otherwise it will once again convert 0 to the minimum value.

I'll send a patch soon with this.

Thanks!

>   	}
>   
>   	nested_svm_transition_tlb_flush(vcpu);
> 
> 
> What do you think?
> 


Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky