[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b6ed5961a3a73de532e2ff0610f43ca129151199.camel@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 18:51:50 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "jmattson@...gle.com" <jmattson@...gle.com>
CC: "Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>, "Yang, Weijiang"
<weijiang.yang@...el.com>, "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>, "peterz@...radead.org"
<peterz@...radead.org>, "john.allen@....com" <john.allen@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mlevitsk@...hat.com" <mlevitsk@...hat.com>, "pbonzini@...hat.com"
<pbonzini@...hat.com>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/26] Enable CET Virtualization
On Fri, 2024-01-05 at 10:09 -0800, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > 3. Task switching
>
> Sigh. KVM is forced to emulate task switch, because the hardware is
> incapable of virtualizing it. How hard would it be to make KVM's
> task-switch emulation CET-aware?
(I am not too familiar with this part of the arch).
See SDM Vol 3a, chapter 7.3, number 8 and 15. The behavior is around
actual task switching. At first glance, it looks annoying at least. It
would need to do a CMPXCHG to guest memory at some points and take care
to not implement the "Complex Shadow-Stack Updates" behavior.
But, would anyone use it? I'm not aware of any 32 bit supervisor shadow
stack support out there. So maybe it is ok to just punt to userspace in
this case?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists