linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] KVM: selftests: x86: Add check of CR0.TS in the #NM handler in amx

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: <CAAAPnDFG+9x5A24cDs8344k9W6zddpJ7cKBFOXmzaLhMhvmR=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Feb 2023 22:01:27 +0000
From:   Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@...gle.com>
To:     Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Venkatesh Srinivas <venkateshs@...gle.com>,
        "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] KVM: selftests: x86: Add check of CR0.TS in the
 #NM handler in amx_test

On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 6:46 PM Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Add check of CR0.TS[bit 3] before the check of IA32_XFD_ERR in the #NM
> handler in amx_test. This is because XFD may not be the only reason of
> the IA32_XFD MSR and the bitmap corresponding to the state components
> required by the faulting instruction." (Intel SDM vol 1. Section 13.14)
>
> Add the missing check of CR0.TS.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/amx_test.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/amx_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/amx_test.c
> index aac727ff7cf8..847752998660 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/amx_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/amx_test.c
> @@ -215,6 +215,7 @@ void guest_nm_handler(struct ex_regs *regs)
>  {
>         /* Check if #NM is triggered by XFEATURE_MASK_XTILEDATA */
>         GUEST_SYNC(7);
> +       GUEST_ASSERT((get_cr0() & X86_CR0_TS) == 0);

Can't we infer that the #NM is the result of an XFD error due to the fact
that IA32_XFD_ERR is set?  Is this check needed?
SDM vol 1, 13.14, EXTENDED FEATURE DISABLE (XFD)
 - Device-not-available exceptions that are not due to XFD - those
   resulting from setting CR0.TS to 1 - do not modify the IA32_XFD_ERR
   MSR.

>         GUEST_ASSERT(rdmsr(MSR_IA32_XFD_ERR) == XFEATURE_MASK_XTILEDATA);
>         GUEST_SYNC(8);
>         GUEST_ASSERT(rdmsr(MSR_IA32_XFD_ERR) == XFEATURE_MASK_XTILEDATA);
> --
> 2.39.1.581.gbfd45094c4-goog
>