linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 40/50] 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: <cf755389c21c73e8367d8162cabc83629d3f9a74.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Dec 2022 13:36:05 +0000
From:   "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To:     "chenhuacai@...nel.org" <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        "maz@...nel.org" <maz@...nel.org>,
        "frankja@...ux.ibm.com" <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com" <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "farman@...ux.ibm.com" <farman@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "aou@...s.berkeley.edu" <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        "palmer@...belt.com" <palmer@...belt.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        "paul.walmsley@...ive.com" <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        "aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com" <aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com>,
        "imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com" <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "paul@....org" <paul@....org>,
        "mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com" <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "vkuznets@...hat.com" <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        "anup@...infault.org" <anup@...infault.org>
CC:     "oliver.upton@...ux.dev" <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "cohuck@...hat.com" <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        "farosas@...ux.ibm.com" <farosas@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>,
        "james.morse@....com" <james.morse@....com>,
        "Yao, Yuan" <yuan.yao@...el.com>,
        "alexandru.elisei@....com" <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
        "linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "mpe@...erman.id.au" <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
        "kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev" <kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "suzuki.poulose@....com" <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        "kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-mips@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>,
        "philmd@...aro.org" <philmd@...aro.org>,
        "atishp@...shpatra.org" <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
        "linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 40/50] KVM: x86: Do compatibility checks when onlining
 CPU

On Wed, 2022-11-30 at 23:09 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -11967,6 +11967,11 @@ int kvm_arch_hardware_enable(void)
>  	bool stable, backwards_tsc = false;
>  
>  	kvm_user_return_msr_cpu_online();
> +
> +	ret = kvm_x86_check_processor_compatibility();
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
>  	ret = static_call(kvm_x86_hardware_enable)();
>  	if (ret != 0)
>  		return ret;

Thinking more, AFAICT, kvm_x86_vendor_init() so far still does the compatibility
check on all online cpus.  Since now kvm_arch_hardware_enable() also does the
compatibility check, IIUC the compatibility check will be done twice -- one in
kvm_x86_vendor_init() and one in hardware_enable_all() when creating the first
VM.

Do you think it's still worth to do compatibility check in vm_x86_vendor_init()?

The behaviour difference should be "KVM module fail to load" vs "failing to
create the first VM" IIUC.  I don't know whether the former is better than the
better, but it seems duplicated compatibility checking isn't needed?