linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Track supported ARCH_CAPABILITIES in kvm

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: <ZGeU9sYTPxqNGSqI@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 May 2023 08:25:42 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>
Cc:     pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com,
        Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Track supported ARCH_CAPABILITIES in kvm_caps

On Fri, May 19, 2023, Chao Gao wrote:
> +Pawan, could you share your thoughts on questions about FB_CLEAR?
> 
> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 10:33:15AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >I do like snapshotting and then updating the value, even though there's likely no
> >meaningful performance benefit, as that would provide a place to document that
> >the "supported" value is dynamic.  Though the fact that it's dynamic is arguably a bug
> >in its own right, e.g. if userspace isn't careful, a VM can have vCPUs with different
> >values for ARCH_CAPABILITIES.  But fixing that is probably a fool's errand.  So
> 
> I am not sure if fixing it is fool. There would be some other problem:

Heh, "fool's errand" is an idiom that means doing something has almost no chance
of succeeding, not that doing something is foolish.  I 100% agree that there's
value in presenting a consistent model to the guest, but there are conflicting
requirements in play.  To present a consistent model, KVM essentially needs to
disallow changing the module param after VMs/vCPUs have been created, but that
would prevent userspace from toggling the param while VMs are running, e.g. in
response to a new vulnerability.

The only feasible idea I can think of is to disallow *disabling* the mitigation
while VMs/vCPUs are active.  But then that prevents turning the L1D flush mitigation
back off if some other mitigation is deployed, e.g. via livepatch, policy update,
etc.

That's why I said trying to fix the knob is probably a fool's errand.  AFAICT,
there's no straightforward solution that makes everybody happy.  :-/