[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230530185232.GA211927@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 20:52:32 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Cc: "Gupta, Pankaj" <pankaj.gupta@....com>,
Tianyu Lan <ltykernel@...il.com>, luto@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, jgross@...e.com,
tiala@...rosoft.com, kirill@...temov.name,
jiangshan.ljs@...group.com, ashish.kalra@....com,
srutherford@...gle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
anshuman.khandual@....com, pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com,
adrian.hunter@...el.com, daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, sandipan.das@....com,
ray.huang@....com, brijesh.singh@....com, michael.roth@....com,
venu.busireddy@...cle.com, sterritt@...gle.com,
tony.luck@...el.com, samitolvanen@...gle.com, fenghua.yu@...el.com,
pangupta@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V6 01/14] x86/sev: Add a #HV exception handler
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 10:59:01AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 5/30/23 09:35, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 02:16:55PM +0200, Gupta, Pankaj wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Add a #HV exception handler that uses IST stack.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Urgh.. that is entirely insufficient. Like it doesn't even begin to
> > > > start to cover things.
> > > >
> > > > The whole existing VC IST stack abuse is already a nightmare and you're
> > > > duplicating that.. without any explanation for why this would be needed
> > > > and how it is correct.
> > > >
> > > > Please try again.
> > >
> > > #HV handler handles both #NMI & #MCE in the guest and nested #HV is never
> > > raised by the hypervisor.
> >
> > I thought all this confidental computing nonsense was about not trusting
> > the hypervisor, so how come we're now relying on the hypervisor being
> > sane?
>
> That should really say that a nested #HV should never be raised by the
> hypervisor, but if it is, then the guest should detect that and
> self-terminate knowing that the hypervisor is possibly being malicious.
I've yet to see code that can do that reliably.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists