linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 02/25] x86/fpu/xstate: Fix guest fpstate allocation size calculation

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: <f2145fcc96b05060b3a9038b7caa37f69b51cbfe.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Sep 2023 16:35:46 +0000
From:   "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To:     "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Yang, Weijiang" <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>,
        "john.allen@....com" <john.allen@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 02/25] x86/fpu/xstate: Fix guest fpstate allocation
 size calculation

On Fri, 2023-09-15 at 10:45 +0800, Yang, Weijiang wrote:
> On 9/15/2023 6:45 AM, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-09-14 at 02:33 -0400, Yang Weijiang wrote:
> > > Fix guest xsave area allocation size from
> > > fpu_user_cfg.default_size
> > > to
> > > fpu_kernel_cfg.default_size so that the xsave area size is
> > > consistent
> > > with fpstate->size set in __fpstate_reset().
> > > 
> > > With the fix, guest fpstate size is sufficient for KVM supported
> > > guest
> > > xfeatures.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>
> > There is no fix (Fixes: ...) here, right?
> 
> Ooh, I got it lost during rebase, thanks!
> 
> > I think this change is needed
> > to make sure KVM guests can support supervisor features. But KVM
> > CET
> > support (to follow in future patches) will be the first one, right?
> 
> Exactly, the existing code takes only user xfeatures into account,
> and we have more
> and more CPU features rely on supervisor xstates.

If KVM is not using any supervisor features, then pre CET KVM support I
think the current code is more correct.