linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 5/5] KVM: VMX: Always honor guest PAT on CPUs that support self-snoop

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]

Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 07:30:48 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, "Zhao, Yan Y"
	<yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
CC: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Lai Jiangshan
	<jiangshanlai@...il.com>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, "Josh
 Triplett" <josh@...htriplett.org>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org"
	<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "rcu@...r.kernel.org" <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Yiwei Zhang
	<zzyiwei@...gle.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 5/5] KVM: VMX: Always honor guest PAT on CPUs that support
 self-snoop

> From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 8:26 AM
> 
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 05:09:29PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > > index 17a8e4fdf9c4..5dc4c24ae203 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > > @@ -7605,11 +7605,13 @@ static u8 vmx_get_mt_mask(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu, gfn_t gfn, bool is_mmio)
> > >
> > >  	/*
> > >  	 * Force WB and ignore guest PAT if the VM does NOT have a non-
> coherent
> > > -	 * device attached.  Letting the guest control memory types on Intel
> > > -	 * CPUs may result in unexpected behavior, and so KVM's ABI is to
> trust
> > > -	 * the guest to behave only as a last resort.
> > > +	 * device attached and the CPU doesn't support self-snoop.  Letting
> the
> > > +	 * guest control memory types on Intel CPUs without self-snoop may
> > > +	 * result in unexpected behavior, and so KVM's (historical) ABI is to
> > > +	 * trust the guest to behave only as a last resort.
> > >  	 */
> > > -	if (!kvm_arch_has_noncoherent_dma(vcpu->kvm))
> > > +	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SELFSNOOP) &&
> > > +	    !kvm_arch_has_noncoherent_dma(vcpu->kvm))
> > >  		return (MTRR_TYPE_WRBACK << VMX_EPT_MT_EPTE_SHIFT)
> | VMX_EPT_IPAT_BIT;
> >
> > For the case of !static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SELFSNOOP) &&
> > kvm_arch_has_noncoherent_dma(vcpu->kvm), I think we at least should
> warn
> > about unsafe before honoring guest memory type.
> 
> I don't think it gains us enough to offset the potential pain such a message
> would bring.  Assuming the warning isn't outright ignored, the most likely
> scenario
> is that the warning will cause random end users to worry that the setup
> they've
> been running for years is broken, when in reality it's probably just fine for
> their
> use case.

Isn't the 'worry' necessary to allow end users evaluate whether "it's
probably just fine for their use case"?

I saw the old comment already mentioned that doing so may lead to
unexpected behaviors. But I'm not sure whether such code-level
caveat has been visible enough to end users.

> 
> I would be quite surprised if there are people running untrusted workloads
> on
> 10+ year old silicon *and* have passthrough devices and non-coherent
> IOMMUs/DMA.

this is probably true.

> And anyone exposing a device directly to an untrusted workload really
> should have
> done their homework.

or they run trusted workloads which might be tampered by virus to
exceed the scope of their homework. 😊

> 
> And it's not like we're going to change KVM's historical behavior at this point.

I agree with your point of not breaking userspace. But still think a warning
might be informative to let users evaluate their setup against a newly
identified "unexpected behavior"  which has security implication beyond
the guest, while the previous interpretation of "unexpected behavior" 
might be that the guest can at most shoot its own foot...