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: <86ttoybbp4.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 04 Dec 2023 08:42:47 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        will@...nel.org, catalin.marinas@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        James Clark <james.clark@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Suzuki Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH V15 5/8] KVM: arm64: nvhe: Disable branch generation in nVHE guests

On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 05:39:03 +0000,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com> wrote:
> 
> Disable the BRBE before we enter the guest, saving the status and enable it
> back once we get out of the guest. This is just to avoid capturing records
> in the guest kernel/userspace, which would be confusing the samples.

Why does it have to be limited to non-VHE? What protects host EL0
records from guest's EL0 execution when the host is VHE?

> 
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
> Cc: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
> Cc: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> Cc: kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
> ---
> Changes in V15:
> 
> - Dropped runtime BRBE enable for setting DEBUG_STATE_SAVE_BRBE
> - Dropped BRBFCR_EL1 from __debug_save_brbe()/__debug_restore_brbe()
> - Always save the live SYS_BRBCR_EL1 in host context and then check if
>   BRBE was enabled before resetting SYS_BRBCR_EL1 for the host
> 
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h  |  4 ++++
>  arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c             |  5 +++++
>  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/debug-sr.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 68421c74283a..1faa0430d8dd 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -449,6 +449,8 @@ enum vcpu_sysreg {
>  	CNTHV_CVAL_EL2,
>  	PMSCR_EL1,	/* Statistical profiling extension */
>  	TRFCR_EL1,	/* Self-hosted trace filters */
> +	BRBCR_EL1,	/* Branch Record Buffer Control Register */
> +	BRBFCR_EL1,	/* Branch Record Buffer Function Control Register */

Whose state is this? If this is limited to the host, it has no purpose
in this enum. Once you add guest support, then it will make sense.

>
>  	NR_SYS_REGS	/* Nothing after this line! */
>  };
> @@ -753,6 +755,8 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
>  #define VCPU_HYP_CONTEXT	__vcpu_single_flag(iflags, BIT(7))
>  /* Save trace filter controls */
>  #define DEBUG_STATE_SAVE_TRFCR	__vcpu_single_flag(iflags, BIT(8))
> +/* Save BRBE context if active  */
> +#define DEBUG_STATE_SAVE_BRBE	__vcpu_single_flag(iflags, BIT(9))
>  
>  /* SVE enabled for host EL0 */
>  #define HOST_SVE_ENABLED	__vcpu_single_flag(sflags, BIT(0))
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c
> index 2ab41b954512..fa46a70a9503 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c
> @@ -354,6 +354,10 @@ void kvm_arch_vcpu_load_debug_state_flags(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  		    !(read_sysreg_s(SYS_TRBIDR_EL1) & TRBIDR_EL1_P))
>  			vcpu_set_flag(vcpu, DEBUG_STATE_SAVE_TRBE);
>  	}
> +
> +	/* Check if we have BRBE implemented and available at the host */
> +	if (cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(dfr0, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_BRBE_SHIFT))
> +		vcpu_set_flag(vcpu, DEBUG_STATE_SAVE_BRBE);
>  }
>  
>  void kvm_arch_vcpu_put_debug_state_flags(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> @@ -361,6 +365,7 @@ void kvm_arch_vcpu_put_debug_state_flags(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  	vcpu_clear_flag(vcpu, DEBUG_STATE_SAVE_SPE);
>  	vcpu_clear_flag(vcpu, DEBUG_STATE_SAVE_TRBE);
>  	vcpu_clear_flag(vcpu, DEBUG_STATE_SAVE_TRFCR);
> +	vcpu_clear_flag(vcpu, DEBUG_STATE_SAVE_BRBE);
>  }
>  
>  void kvm_etm_set_guest_trfcr(u64 trfcr_guest)
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/debug-sr.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/debug-sr.c
> index 6174f710948e..1994fc48b57c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/debug-sr.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/debug-sr.c
> @@ -93,6 +93,33 @@ static void __debug_restore_trace(struct kvm_cpu_context *host_ctxt,
>  		write_sysreg_s(ctxt_sys_reg(host_ctxt, TRFCR_EL1), SYS_TRFCR_EL1);
>  }
>  
> +static void __debug_save_brbe(struct kvm_cpu_context *host_ctxt)
> +{
> +	ctxt_sys_reg(host_ctxt, BRBCR_EL1) = read_sysreg_s(SYS_BRBCR_EL1);
> +
> +	/* Check if the BRBE is enabled */
> +	if (!(ctxt_sys_reg(host_ctxt, BRBCR_EL1) & (BRBCR_ELx_E0BRE | BRBCR_ELx_ExBRE)))
> +		return;

Why save BRBCR_EL1 if there is nothing enabled? It isn't like it can
change behind your back, can it?

> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Prohibit branch record generation while we are in guest.
> +	 * Since access to BRBCR_EL1 is trapped, the guest can't
> +	 * modify the filtering set by the host.
> +	 */
> +	write_sysreg_s(0, SYS_BRBCR_EL1);
> +	isb();

What is the point of this ISB? We're at EL2, and this only affects
EL1.

> +}
> +
> +static void __debug_restore_brbe(struct kvm_cpu_context *host_ctxt)
> +{
> +	if (!ctxt_sys_reg(host_ctxt, BRBCR_EL1))
> +		return;

So on one side you're using a flag, and on the other you're using the
*value*. You need some consistency.

> +
> +	/* Restore BRBE controls */
> +	write_sysreg_s(ctxt_sys_reg(host_ctxt, BRBCR_EL1), SYS_BRBCR_EL1);
> +	isb();

Same question.

> +}
> +
>  void __debug_save_host_buffers_nvhe(struct kvm_cpu_context *host_ctxt,
>  				    struct kvm_cpu_context *guest_ctxt)
>  {
> @@ -102,6 +129,10 @@ void __debug_save_host_buffers_nvhe(struct kvm_cpu_context *host_ctxt,
>  
>  	if (vcpu_get_flag(host_ctxt->__hyp_running_vcpu, DEBUG_STATE_SAVE_TRFCR))
>  		__debug_save_trace(host_ctxt, guest_ctxt);
> +
> +	/* Disable BRBE branch records */
> +	if (vcpu_get_flag(host_ctxt->__hyp_running_vcpu, DEBUG_STATE_SAVE_BRBE))
> +		__debug_save_brbe(host_ctxt);
>  }
>  
>  void __debug_switch_to_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> @@ -116,6 +147,8 @@ void __debug_restore_host_buffers_nvhe(struct kvm_cpu_context *host_ctxt,
>  		__debug_restore_spe(host_ctxt);
>  	if (vcpu_get_flag(host_ctxt->__hyp_running_vcpu, DEBUG_STATE_SAVE_TRFCR))
>  		__debug_restore_trace(host_ctxt, guest_ctxt);
> +	if (vcpu_get_flag(host_ctxt->__hyp_running_vcpu, DEBUG_STATE_SAVE_BRBE))
> +		__debug_restore_brbe(host_ctxt);
>  }
>  
>  void __debug_switch_to_host(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)

The lifetime of this flag seems bogus, specially when there is nothing
to do, which will always be the arch-majority of the executions.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ