linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/21] Enable CET Virtualization

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]

Date:   Thu, 20 Jul 2023 07:26:04 +0200
From:   Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta.linux@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rppt@...nel.org,
        binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com,
        john.allen@....com, Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/21] Enable CET Virtualization

> > My understanding is that PL[0-2]_SSP are used only on transitions to the
> > corresponding privilege level from a *different* privilege level.  That means
> > KVM should be able to utilize the user_return_msr framework to load the host
> > values.  Though if Linux ever supports SSS, I'm guessing the core kernel will
> > have some sort of mechanism to defer loading MSR_IA32_PL0_SSP until an exit to
> > userspace, e.g. to avoid having to write PL0_SSP, which will presumably be
> > per-task, on every context switch.
> >
> > But note my original wording: **If that's necessary**
> >
> > If nothing in the host ever consumes those MSRs, i.e. if SSS is NOT enabled in
> > IA32_S_CET, then running host stuff with guest values should be ok.  KVM only
> > needs to guarantee that it doesn't leak values between guests.  But that should
> > Just Work, e.g. KVM should load the new vCPU's values if SHSTK is exposed to the
> > guest, and intercept (to inject #GP) if SHSTK is not exposed to the guest.
> >
> > And regardless of what the mechanism ends up managing SSP MSRs, it should only
> > ever touch PL0_SSP, because Linux never runs anything at CPL1 or CPL2, i.e. will
> > never consume PL{1,2}_SSP.
>
> To clarify, Linux will only use SSS in FRED mode -- FRED removes CPL1,2.

Trying to understand more what prevents SSS to enable in pre FRED, Is
it better #CP exception
handling with other nested exceptions?

Won't same problems (to some extent) happen in user-mode shadow stack
(and in case of guest, SSS inside VM)?

Thanks,
Pankaj