linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Set BHI_NO in guest when host is not affected by BHI

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: <95902795-0c2c-43cc-8d87-89302a2eed2b@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 15:20:29 +0200
From: Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>
To: Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Cc: alexandre.chartre@...cle.com, x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com,
        pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        konrad.wilk@...cle.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, seanjc@...gle.com,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, nik.borisov@...e.com, kpsingh@...nel.org,
        longman@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, pbonzini@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Set BHI_NO in guest when host is not affected
 by BHI


On 4/11/24 13:14, Chao Gao wrote:
>>> The problem is that we can end up with a guest running extra BHI
>>> mitigations
>>> while this is not needed. Could we inform the guest that eIBRS is not
>>> available
>>> on the system so a Linux guest doesn't run with extra BHI mitigations?
>>
>> Well, that's why Intel specified some MSRs at 0x5000xxxx.
> 
> Yes. But note that there is a subtle difference. Those MSRs are used for guest
> to communicate in-used software mitigations to the host. Such information is
> stable across migration. Here we need the host to communicate that eIBRS isn't
> available to the guest. this isn't stable as the guest may be migrated from
> a host without eIBRS to one with it.
> 
>>
>> Except I don't know anyone currently interested in implementing them,
>> and I'm still not sure if they work correctly for some of the more
>> complicated migration cases.
> 
> Looks you have the same opinion on the Intel-defined virtual MSRs as Sean.
> If we all agree the issue here and the effectivenss problem of the short
> BHB-clearing sequence need to be resolved and don't think the Intel-defined
> virtual MSRs can handle all cases correctly, we have to define a better
> interface through community collaboration as Sean suggested.

Another solution could be to add cpus to cpu_vuln_whitelist with BHI_NO.
(e.g. explicitly add cpus which have eIBRS). That way, the kernel will
figure out the right mitigation on the host and guest.

alex.