linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 26/27] KVM: nVMX: Enable CET support for nested guest

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <071499ba-16b3-4c79-8b4b-95c03faf7493@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 17:25:44 +0800
From: "Yang, Weijiang" <weijiang.yang@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: <pbonzini@...hat.com>, <dave.hansen@...el.com>, <x86@...nel.org>,
	<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<peterz@...radead.org>, <chao.gao@...el.com>, <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
	<mlevitsk@...hat.com>, <john.allen@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 26/27] KVM: nVMX: Enable CET support for nested guest

On 5/2/2024 7:23 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2024, Yang Weijiang wrote:
>> @@ -2438,6 +2460,30 @@ static void prepare_vmcs02_early(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, struct loaded_vmcs *vmcs0
>>   	}
>>   }
>>   
>> +static inline void cet_vmcs_fields_get(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *ssp,
>> +				       u64 *s_cet, u64 *ssp_tbl)
>> +{
>> +	if (guest_can_use(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_SHSTK)) {
>> +		*ssp = vmcs_readl(GUEST_SSP);
>> +		*s_cet = vmcs_readl(GUEST_S_CET);
>> +		*ssp_tbl = vmcs_readl(GUEST_INTR_SSP_TABLE);
>> +	} else if (guest_can_use(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_IBT)) {
>> +		*s_cet = vmcs_readl(GUEST_S_CET);
>> +	}
> Same comments about accessing S_CET, please do so in a dedicated path.

Will change it, thanks!

>
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void cet_vmcs_fields_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 ssp,
>> +				       u64 s_cet, u64 ssp_tbl)
> This should probably use "set" instead of "put".  I can't think of a single case
> where KVM uses "put" to describe writing state, e.g. "put" is always used when
> putting a reference or unloading state.

Yes, "put" is not proper in this case, will change it.


>
>> +{
>> +	if (guest_can_use(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_SHSTK)) {
>> +		vmcs_writel(GUEST_SSP, ssp);
>> +		vmcs_writel(GUEST_S_CET, s_cet);
>> +		vmcs_writel(GUEST_INTR_SSP_TABLE, ssp_tbl);
>> +	} else if (guest_can_use(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_IBT)) {
>> +		vmcs_writel(GUEST_S_CET, s_cet);
>> +	}
> And here.

OK.