[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZZhVzNb4QHzGJO6W@google.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 11:34:05 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Rick P Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Cc: "jmattson@...gle.com" <jmattson@...gle.com>, Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>,
Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.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, Jan 05, 2024, Rick P Edgecombe wrote:
> 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?
Yeah, I think KVM can punt.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists