linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 06/28] KVM: nVMX: Introduce KVM_CAP_HYPERV_ENLIGHTENED

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: <YsYAPL1UUKJB3/MJ@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Jul 2022 21:35:56 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Anirudh Rayabharam <anrayabh@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>,
        linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/28] KVM: nVMX: Introduce
 KVM_CAP_HYPERV_ENLIGHTENED_VMCS2

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Turns out Enlightened VMCS can gain new fields without version change
> and KVM_CAP_HYPERV_ENLIGHTENED_VMCS which KVM currently has cant's
> handle this reliably. In particular, just updating the current definition
> of eVMCSv1 with the new fields and adjusting the VMX MSR filtering will
> inevitably break live migration to older KVMs. Note: enabling eVMCS and
> setting VMX feature MSR can happen in any order.
> 
> Introduce a notion of KVM internal "Enlightened VMCS revision" and add
> a new capability allowing to add fields to Enlightened VMCS while keeping
> its version.

Bumping a "minor" version number in KVM is going to be a nightmare.  KVM is going
to be stuck "supporting" old revisions in perpetuity, and userspace will be forced
to keep track of which features are available with which arbitrary revision (is
that information even communicated to userspace?).

I think a more maintainable approach would be to expose the "filtered" VMX MSRs to
userspace, e.g. add KVM_GET_EVMCS_VMX_MSRS.  Then KVM just needs to document what
the "filters" are for KVM versions that don't support KVM_GET_EVMCS_VMX_MSRS.
KVM itself doesn't need to maintain version information because it's userspace's
responsibility to ensure that userspace doesn't try to migrate to a KVM that doesn't
support the desired feature set.

That also avoids messes like unnecessarily blocking migration from "incompatible"
revisions when running on hardware that doesn't even support the control.