linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 36/44] KVM: x86: Do compatibility checks when onlining CPU

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: <20221103210402.GB1063309@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Nov 2022 14:04:02 -0700
From:   Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Eric Farman <farman@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
        kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
        Fabiano Rosas <farosas@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Yuan Yao <yuan.yao@...el.com>, isaku.yamahata@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 36/44] KVM: x86: Do compatibility checks when onlining CPU

On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 11:19:03PM +0000,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:

> From: Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>
> 
> Do compatibility checks when enabling hardware to effectively add
> compatibility checks when onlining a CPU.  Abort enabling, i.e. the
> online process, if the (hotplugged) CPU is incompatible with the known
> good setup.
> 
> At init time, KVM does compatibility checks to ensure that all online
> CPUs support hardware virtualization and a common set of features. But
> KVM uses hotplugged CPUs without such compatibility checks. On Intel
> CPUs, this leads to #GP if the hotplugged CPU doesn't support VMX, or
> VM-Entry failure if the hotplugged CPU doesn't support all features
> enabled by KVM.
> 
> Note, this is little more than a NOP on SVM, as SVM already checks for
> full SVM support during hardware enabling.
> 
> Opportunistically add a pr_err() if setup_vmcs_config() fails, and
> tweak all error messages to output which CPU failed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>
> Co-developed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h |  2 +-
>  arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c          | 20 +++++++++++---------
>  arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c          | 33 +++++++++++++++++++--------------
>  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c              |  5 +++--
>  4 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index f223c845ed6e..c99222b71fcc 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -1666,7 +1666,7 @@ struct kvm_x86_nested_ops {
>  };
>  
>  struct kvm_x86_init_ops {
> -	int (*check_processor_compatibility)(void);
> +	int (*check_processor_compatibility)(int cpu);

Is this cpu argument used only for error message to include cpu number
with avoiding repeating raw_smp_processor_id() in pr_err()?
The actual check is done on the current executing cpu.

If cpu != raw_smp_processor_id(), cpu is wrong. Although the function is called
in non-preemptive context, it's a bit confusing. So voting to remove it and
to use.

Thanks,
-- 
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>