linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/22] x86/srso: Set CPUID feature bits independently of bug or mitigation status

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: <22eb07b3-6de4-9fc2-fb05-2c7ebe6dc951@citrix.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Aug 2023 13:22:34 +0100
From:   Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, David.Kaplan@....com,
        Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/22] x86/srso: Set CPUID feature bits independently of
 bug or mitigation status

On 23/08/2023 6:20 am, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 04:06:19PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> And I still don't know what exactly we're going to support when Linux
>> runs as a guest. For example, live migration between Zen1/2 and Zen3/4
>> won't work due to the alternatives patching, for example...
>>
>> IBPB won't work either because we detect those feature bits only once
>> during boot, like every other feature bit...
> The lowest common denominator of features exposed to the guests,

Correct.  This is what a hypervisor will do for the SBPB *CPUID* bit.

> should
> work, as I'm being told. As in, Zen2 and Zen3 should hide the SBPB bit
> from the guests, for example.

In my previous reply, I explained why this goes wrong when Linux ignores
the CPUID bit provided by the hypervisor and decides to probe manually.

> I'm thinking if anyone cares really deeply about live migration, anyone
> should say so and then we can see what cases we can support upstream. My
> guess is those who do, have enough engineers to patch their kernel the
> way they want it...

No.

You don't get to take my code, break it when integrating it into Linux,
then dismiss the bug as something hypothetical that you don't want to fix.

It's not *me* needing to patch *my* kernel when this goes wrong.  It's
me (or VMware, or HyperV or one of many KVM vendors) getting a bug
report saying "my VM crashed on migrate", and then having to persuade
Debian and Ubuntu and RH and Oracle and all the other distros to take an
out-of-tree fix into their patchqueue, then release another kernel, and
then come back to this thread and repeat this damn argument.

I'm just trying to cutting out the middle misery here.

~Andrew