linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 3/9] KVM: x86: Use KVM-governed feature framework to track "LAM enabled"

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: <244a3f0b-16fd-eac8-f207-1dfe7859410b@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Aug 2023 09:28:52 +0800
From:   Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>
Cc:     Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>,
        "David.Laight@...LAB.COM" <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Guang Zeng <guang.zeng@...el.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "robert.hu@...ux.intel.com" <robert.hu@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 3/9] KVM: x86: Use KVM-governed feature framework to
 track "LAM enabled"



On 8/17/2023 5:33 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023, Kai Huang wrote:
>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
>>>>> @@ -7783,6 +7783,9 @@ static void vmx_vcpu_after_set_cpuid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>>    		vmx->msr_ia32_feature_control_valid_bits &=
>>>>>    			~FEAT_CTL_SGX_LC_ENABLED;
>>>>>    
>>>>> +	if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_LAM))
>>>>> +		kvm_governed_feature_check_and_set(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_LAM);
>>>>> +
>>>> If you want to use boot_cpu_has(), it's better to be done at your last patch to
>>>> only set the cap bit when boot_cpu_has() is true, I suppose.
>>> Yes, but new version of kvm_governed_feature_check_and_set() of
>>> KVM-governed feature framework will check against kvm_cpu_cap_has() as well.
>>> I will remove the if statement and call
>>> kvm_governed_feature_check_and_set()  directly.
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20230815203653.519297-2-seanjc@google.com/
>>>
>> I mean kvm_cpu_cap_has() checks against the host CPUID directly while here you
>> are using boot_cpu_has().  They are not the same.
>>
>> If LAM should be only supported when boot_cpu_has() is true then it seems you
>> can just only set the LAM cap bit when boot_cpu_has() is true.  As you also
>> mentioned above the kvm_governed_feature_check_and_set() here internally does
>> kvm_cpu_cap_has().
> That's covered by the last patch:
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> index e961e9a05847..06061c11d74d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> @@ -677,7 +677,7 @@ void kvm_set_cpu_caps(void)
>          kvm_cpu_cap_mask(CPUID_7_1_EAX,
>                  F(AVX_VNNI) | F(AVX512_BF16) | F(CMPCCXADD) |
>                  F(FZRM) | F(FSRS) | F(FSRC) |
> -               F(AMX_FP16) | F(AVX_IFMA)
> +               F(AMX_FP16) | F(AVX_IFMA) | F(LAM)
>          );
>   
>          kvm_cpu_cap_init_kvm_defined(CPUID_7_1_EDX,
>
>
> Which highlights a problem with activating a goverened feature before said feature
> is actually supported by KVM: it's all kinds of confusing.
>
> It'll generate a more churn in git history, but I think we should first enable
> LAM without a goverened feature, and then activate a goverened feature later on.
> Using a goverened feature is purely an optimization, i.e. the series needs to be
> function without using a governed feature.
OK, then how about the second option which has been listed in your v9 
patch series discussion.
https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20230606091842.13123-1-binbin.wu@linux.intel.com/T/#m16ee5cec4a46954f985cb6afedb5f5a3435373a1

Temporarily add a bool can_use_lam in kvm_vcpu_arch and use the bool
"can_use_lam" instead of guest_can_use(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_LAM).
and then put the patch of adopting "KVM-governed feature framework" to 
the last.


>
> That should yield an easier-to-review series on all fronts: the initial supports
> won't have any more hidden dependencies than absolutely necessary, switching to
> a goverened feature should be a very mechanical conversion (if it's not, that's
> a red flag), and last but not least, it makes it super easy to make a judgment
> call as to whether using a governed feature flag is justified, because all of the
> users will be in scope.
>
> TL;DR: Do the whole goverened feature thing dead last.