linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 08/19] KVM:x86: Report KVM supported CET MSRs as to-be-saved

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:   Sat, 5 Aug 2023 00:01:15 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>
Cc:     Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
        john.allen@....com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com,
        binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/19] KVM:x86: Report KVM supported CET MSRs as
 to-be-saved

On 8/4/23 20:51, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>>>> +	case MSR_IA32_PL0_SSP ... MSR_IA32_INT_SSP_TAB:
>>>>> +		if (!kvm_is_cet_supported())
>>>> shall we consider the case where IBT is supported while SS isn't
>>>> (e.g., in L1 guest)?
>>>
>>> Yes, but userspace should be able to access SHSTK MSRs even only IBT is
>>> exposed to guest so far as KVM can support SHSTK MSRs.
>>
>> Why should userspace be allowed to access SHSTK MSRs in this case? L1 may not
>> even enumerate SHSTK (qemu removes -shstk explicitly but keeps IBT), how KVM in
>> L1 can allow its userspace to do that?
>
> +1.  And specifically, this isn't about SHSTK being exposed to the guest, it's about
> SHSTK being _supported by KVM_.  This is all about KVM telling userspace what MSRs
> are valid and/or need to be saved+restored.  If KVM doesn't support a feature,
> then the MSRs are invalid and there is no reason for userspace to save+restore
> the MSRs on live migration.

I think you three are talking past each other.

There are four cases:

- U_CET/S_CET supported by the host and exposed (obvious).

- U_CET/S_CET supported by the host, IBT or SHSTK partially exposed.  The
MSRs should still be guest-accessible and bits that apply to absent features
should be reserved (bits 0-1 for SHSTK, bits 2-63 for IBT).

- U_CET/S_CET supported by the host, IBT or SHSTK not exposed.  The MSRs
should still be host-accessible and writable to the default value.  This is
clearer if you think that KVM_GET_MSR_INDEX_LIST is a system ioctl.  Whether
to allow writing 0 from the guest is debatable.

- U_CET/S_CET not supported by the host.  Then the MSRs should not be
enabled and should not be in KVM_GET_MSR_INDEX_LIST, and also IBT/SHSTK
should not be in KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID.

In my opinion it is reasonable to require both U_CET and S_CET to be
supported from the beginning in the host in order to support CET.  It
is simpler and keeps the feature matrix at bay.

Paolo