linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/19] Refresh queued CET virtualization series

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: <8a38488d-fb6e-72f9-3529-b098a97d8c97@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Jun 2022 17:28:40 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>, seanjc@...gle.com,
        x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/19] Refresh queued CET virtualization series

On 6/16/22 16:18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 12:21:20PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 6/16/22 12:12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> Do I understand this right in that a host without X86_KERNEL_IBT cannot
>>> run a guest with X86_KERNEL_IBT on? That seems unfortunate, since that
>>> was exactly what I did while developing the X86_KERNEL_IBT patches.
>>>
>>> I'm thinking that if the hardware supports it, KVM should expose it,
>>> irrespective of the host kernel using it.
>>
>> For IBT in particular, I think all processor state is only loaded and stored
>> at vmentry/vmexit (does not need XSAVES), so it should be feasible.
> 
> That would be the S_CET stuff, yeah, that's VMCS managed. The U_CET
> stuff is all XSAVE though.

What matters is whether XFEATURE_MASK_USER_SUPPORTED includes 
XFEATURE_CET_USER.  If you build with !X86_KERNEL_IBT, KVM can still 
rely on the FPU state for U_CET state, and S_CET is saved/restored via 
the VMCS independent of X86_KERNEL_IBT.

Paolo

> But funny thing, CPUID doesn't enumerate {U,S}_CET separately. It *does*
> enumerate IBT and SS separately, but for each IBT/SS you have to
> implement both U and S.
> 
> That was a problem with the first series, which only implemented support
> for U_CET while advertising IBT and SS (very much including S_CET), and
> still is a problem with this series because S_SS is missing while
> advertised.