linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] KVM: x86: SGX vs. XCR0 cleanups

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZGfius5UkckpUyXl@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 May 2023 13:57:30 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] KVM: x86: SGX vs. XCR0 cleanups

On Fri, May 19, 2023, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 5/3/23 18:08, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Stop adjusting the guest's CPUID info for the allowed XFRM (a.k.a. XCR0)
> > for SGX enclaves.  Past me didn't understand the roles and responsibilities
> > between userspace and KVM with respect to CPUID leafs, i.e. I thought I was
> > being helpful by having KVM adjust the entries.
> > 
> > This is clearly an ABI change, but QEMU does the right thing and AFAIK no
> > other VMMs support SGX (yet), so I'm hopeful/confident that we can excise
> > the ugly before userspace starts depending on the bad behavior.
> > v2:
> >   - Collect reviews/testing. [Kai]
> >   - Require FP+SSE to always be set in XFRM, and exempt them from the XFRM
> >     vs. XCR0 check. [Kai]
> > 
> > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230405005911.423699-1-seanjc@google.com
> > 
> > Sean Christopherson (3):
> >    KVM: VMX: Don't rely _only_ on CPUID to enforce XCR0 restrictions for
> >      ECREATE
> >    KVM: x86: Don't adjust guest's CPUID.0x12.1 (allowed SGX enclave XFRM)
> >    KVM: x86: Open code supported XCR0 calculation in
> >      kvm_vcpu_after_set_cpuid()
> > 
> >   arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c   | 43 ++++++++++--------------------------------
> >   arch/x86/kvm/vmx/sgx.c | 11 +++++++++--
> >   2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
> > 
> > 
> > base-commit: 5c291b93e5d665380dbecc6944973583f9565ee5
> 
> Queued, thanks.  But why patch 3?

I want to guard against future misuse of calculating the support XCR0 before the
CPUID update is complete.  I suppose I could have done this:

  static u64 guest_cpuid_supported_xcr0(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
  {
	struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *best;

	best = kvm_find_cpuid_entry_index(vcpu, 0xd, 0);
	if (!best)
		return 0;

	return (best->eax | ((u64)best->edx << 32)) & kvm_caps.supported_xcr0;
  }

but I don't really see the point since there should only ever be one caller,
e.g. unlike cpuid_query_maxphyaddr() which needs a non-zero default.

> Small functions are nice and remove the need to remember what is in EDX:EAX
> of CPUID[0xD,0].

Hmm, yes and no.  Specifically, I dislike single-use helpers that bury unintuitive
details in the helper, e.g. in this case, filtering the raw iguest CPUID with KVM's
kvm_caps.supported_xcr0.  Communicating that in the name of the function so that
they're are no surprises is often more difficult than just open coding things.