linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/10] x86/tdx: Extend TDX_MODULE_CALL to support more TDCALL/SEAMCALL leafs

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: <c0861d54af50ef01983703cc24e41118867342b8.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Jul 2023 09:34:24 +0000
From:   "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To:     "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] x86/tdx: Extend TDX_MODULE_CALL to support more
 TDCALL/SEAMCALL leafs

On Thu, 2023-07-13 at 10:46 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 07:48:20AM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
> 
> > I found below comment in KVM code:
> > 
> > > +	 * See arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmenter.S:
> > > +	 *
> > > +	 * In theory, a L1 cache miss when restoring register from stack
> > > +	 * could lead to speculative execution with guest's values.
> > 
> > And KVM explicitly does XOR for the registers that gets "pop"ed almost
> > instantly, so I followed.
> > 
> > But to be honest I don't quite understand this.  :-)
> 
> Urgh, I suppose that actually makes sense. Since pop is a load it might
> continue speculation with the previous value. Whereas the xor-clear
> idiom is impossible to speculate through.
> 
> Oh well...

Then should I keep those registers that are "pop"ed immediately afterwards?