linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] xen/pv: allow pmu msr accesses to cause GP

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: <a070485a-1eed-420c-552f-16688e89d65f@suse.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Oct 2022 12:58:57 +0200
From:   Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
To:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] xen/pv: allow pmu msr accesses to cause GP

On 04.10.2022 10:43, Juergen Gross wrote:
> Today pmu_msr_read() and pmu_msr_write() fall back to the safe variants
> of read/write MSR in case the MSR access isn't emulated via Xen. Allow
> the caller to select the potentially faulting variant by passing NULL
> for the error pointer.
> 
> Restructure the code to make it more readable.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>

I think the title (and to some degree also the description) is misleading:
The property we care about here isn't whether an MSR access would raise
#GP (we can't control that), but whether that #GP would be recovered from.

> --- a/arch/x86/xen/pmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/pmu.c
> @@ -131,6 +131,9 @@ static inline uint32_t get_fam15h_addr(u32 addr)
>  
>  static inline bool is_amd_pmu_msr(unsigned int msr)
>  {
> +	if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
> +		return false;

I understand this and ...

> @@ -144,6 +147,9 @@ static int is_intel_pmu_msr(u32 msr_index, int *type, int *index)
>  {
>  	u32 msr_index_pmc;
>  
> +	if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
> +		return false;

... this matches prior behavior, but may I suggest that while moving
these here you at least accompany them by a comment clarifying that
these aren't really correct? We'd come closer if is_amd_pmu_msr()
accepted AMD and Hygon, while is_intel_pmu_msr() may want to accept
Intel and Centaur (but I understand this would be largely orthogonal,
hence the suggestion towards comments). In the hypervisor we kind of
also support Shanghai, but I wonder whether we wouldn't better rip
out that code as unmaintained.

Jan