linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] KVM: nVMX: Don't muck with allowed sec exec controls on CPUID changes

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: <70872206-7a75-0a19-3df5-a97207e710fa@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Dec 2022 18:30:20 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@...gle.com>,
        Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] KVM: nVMX: Don't muck with allowed sec exec
 controls on CPUID changes

On 12/13/22 07:23, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Don't modify the set of allowed secondary execution controls, i.e. the
> virtual MSR_IA32_VMX_PROCBASED_CTLS2, in response to guest CPUID changes.
> To avoid breaking old userspace that never sets the VMX MSRs, i.e. relies
> on KVM to provide a consistent vCPU model, keep the existing behavior if
> userspace has never written MSR_IA32_VMX_PROCBASED_CTLS2.
> 
> KVM should not modify the VMX capabilities presented to L1 based on CPUID
> as doing so may discard explicit settings provided by userspace.  E.g. if
> userspace does KVM_SET_MSRS => KVM_SET_CPUID and disables a feature in
> the VMX MSRs but not CPUID (to prevent exposing the feature to L2), then
> stuffing the VMX MSRs during KVM_SET_CPUID will expose the feature to L2
> against userspace's wishes.

The commit message doesn't explain *why* KVM_SET_CPUID would be done 
before KVM_SET_MSRS.  The presence of certain MSRs or bits within is 
signaled by CPUID bits, and even though KVM is more lenient on 
host-initiated MSR writes it still verifies in general that the bits are 
valid.

For now I applied patch 1 and (with a reworded comment) patch 2.  I'm 
not opposed to the rest, but I would like to better understand the 
reason for them.  (If it has been reported to the mailing list, please 
add a "Link" trailer too).

Paolo