linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kvm/x86: reserve bit KVM_HINTS_PHYS_ADDRESS_SIZE_DATA

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]

Date:   Wed, 21 Sep 2022 09:32:25 -0700
From:   Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm/x86: reserve bit KVM_HINTS_PHYS_ADDRESS_SIZE_DATA_VALID

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 8:00 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 07:02:24AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 02:52:36PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2022, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > > > > -#define KVM_HINTS_REALTIME      0
> > > > > +#define KVM_HINTS_REALTIME                      0
> > > > > +#define KVM_HINTS_PHYS_ADDRESS_SIZE_DATA_VALID  1
> > > >
> > > > Why does KVM need to get involved?  This is purely a userspace problem.
> > >
> > > It doesn't.  I only need reserve a hints bit, and the canonical source
> > > for that happens to live in the kernel.  That's why this patch doesn't
> > > touch any actual code ;)
>
> The issue is that this "hint" effectively breaks other VMMs that already provide
> an accurate guest.MAXPHYADDR.

Any VMM that doesn't provide an accurate guest.MAXPHYADDR is broken.
Why do we need a "hint" that the virtual processor works?

> > > > E.g. why not use QEMU's fw_cfg to communicate this information to the
> > > > guest?
> > >
> > > That is indeed the other obvious way to implement this.  Given this
> > > information will be needed in code paths which already do CPUID queries
> > > using CPUID to transport that information looked like the better option
> > > to me.
> >
> > I'd like to move forward with this.
> >
> > So, any comment further comments and opinions?
> > Is it ok to grab a hints bit given the explanation above?
> > Or should I go for the fw_cfg approach?
>
> My strong preference is the fw_cfg approach, or if the guest side really wants to
> use CPUID, have QEMU define it's own CPUID signature and provide QEMU-specific
> hints/quirks that way.