linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 25/25] KVM: x86: Add CPUID bits missing from KVM_GET_SUPPORTED

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: <ZrwFWiSQc6pRHrCG@google.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 18:16:10 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>
Cc: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>, Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, 
	pbonzini@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, kai.huang@...el.com, 
	isaku.yamahata@...il.com, tony.lindgren@...ux.intel.com, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 25/25] KVM: x86: Add CPUID bits missing from KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024, Chao Gao wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 11:14:31PM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> >On 8/13/2024 7:34 PM, Chao Gao wrote:
> >> I think adding new fixed-1 bits is fine as long as they don't break KVM, i.e.,
> >> KVM shouldn't need to take any action for the new fixed-1 bits, like
> >> saving/restoring more host CPU states across TD-enter/exit or emulating
> >> CPUID/MSR accesses from guests
> >
> >I disagree. Adding new fixed-1 bits in a newer TDX module can lead to a
> >different TD with same cpu model.
> 
> The new TDX module simply doesn't support old CPU models.

What happens if the new TDX module is needed to fix a security issue?  Or if a
customer wants to support a heterogenous migration pool, and older (physical)
CPUs don't support the feature?  Or if a customer wants to continue hosting
existing VM shapes on newer hardware?

> QEMU can report an error and define a new CPU model that works with the TDX
> module. Sometimes, CPUs may drop features;

Very, very rarely.  And when it does happen, there are years of warning before
the features are dropped.

> this may cause KVM to not support some features and in turn some old CPU
> models having those features cannot be supported.  is it a requirement for
> TDX modules alone that old CPU models must always be supported?

Not a hard requirement, but a pretty firm one.  There needs to be sane, reasonable
behavior, or we're going to have problems.