linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] KVM: x86: emulator: introduce update_emulation

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: <4c6deb603ba5b9fbc7e7c30d429190ed5517e97b.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jul 2022 14:52:21 +0300
From:   Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] KVM: x86: emulator: introduce
 update_emulation_mode

On Wed, 2022-07-20 at 23:44 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > +static inline int update_emulation_mode(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt)
> 
> Maybe emulator_recalc_and_set_mode()?  It took me a second to understand that
> "update" also involves determining the "new" mode, e.g. I was trying to figure
> out where @mode was :-)

I don't mind at all, will update in v3.

> 
> > +{
> > +	u64 efer;
> > +	struct desc_struct cs;
> > +	u16 selector;
> > +	u32 base3;
> > +
> > +	ctxt->ops->get_msr(ctxt, MSR_EFER, &efer);
> > +
> > +	if (!ctxt->ops->get_cr(ctxt, 0) & X86_CR0_PE) {
> > +		/* Real mode. cpu must not have long mode active */
> > +		if (efer & EFER_LMA)
> > +			return X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE;
> 
> If we hit this, is there any hope of X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE doing the right thing?
> Ah, SMM and the ability to swizzle SMRAM state.  Bummer.  I was hoping we could
> just bug the VM.

I just tried to be a good citizen here, it is probably impossible to hit this case.
(RSM ignores LMA bit in the EFER in the SMRAM).

Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky



> 
> > +		ctxt->mode = X86EMUL_MODE_REAL;
> > +		return X86EMUL_CONTINUE;
> > +	}