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: <12ccd0d3-e9a8-47b6-9564-7146d0a79f3a@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 17:03:48 +0800
From: "Yang, Weijiang" <weijiang.yang@...el.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
CC: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, Thomas Gleixner
	<tglx@...utronix.de>, <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	<x86@...nel.org>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<peterz@...radead.org>, <chao.gao@...el.com>, <mlevitsk@...hat.com>,
	<john.allen@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 24/27] KVM: x86: Enable CET virtualization for VMX and
 advertise to userspace

On 5/21/2024 1:15 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/20/24 10:09, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>> IIUC, this series tries to tie IBT to SHSTK feature, i.e., IBT cannot be
>>> exposed as an independent feature to guest without exposing SHSTK at the same
>>> time. If it is, then below patch is not needed anymore:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240219074733.122080-3-weijiang.yang@intel.com/
>> That's a question for the x86 maintainers.  Specifically, do they want to allow
>> enabling XFEATURE_CET_USER even if userspace shadow stack support is disabled.
> I like the sound of "below patch is not needed anymore".
>
> Unless removing the patch causes permanent issues or results in
> something that's not functional, I say: jettison it with glee. If it's
> that important, it can be considered on its own merits separately.
I guess the existing dependency there is due to the fact that only user SHSTK is landed and there's
possibly no such kind of odd bare metal platform.

Side topic:  would it be reasonable to enforce IBT dependency on XFEATURE_CET_USER when *user* IBT
enabling patches are landing in kernel? Then guest kernel can play with user IBT alone if VMM
userspace just wants to enable IBT for guest. Or when SHSTK is disabled for whatever reason.




Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ