linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/bhi: avoid hardware mitigation for 'spectre

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: <49173342-7518-4A69-9B45-01DA7FCB6831@nutanix.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 15:52:07 +0000
From: Jon Kohler <jon@...anix.com>
To: Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar
	<mingo@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, X86 ML
	<x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, LKML
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvm @ vger . kernel . org"
	<kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/bhi: avoid hardware mitigation for
 'spectre_bhi=vmexit'



> On Sep 13, 2024, at 1:39 AM, Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com> wrote:
> 
> !-------------------------------------------------------------------|
>  CAUTION: External Email
> 
> |-------------------------------------------------------------------!
> 
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 07:11:56AM -0700, Jon Kohler wrote:
>> On hardware that supports BHI_DIS_S/X86_FEATURE_BHI_CTRL, do not use
>> hardware mitigation when using BHI_MITIGATION_VMEXIT_ONLY, as this
>> causes the value of MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL to change, which inflicts
>> additional KVM overhead.
>> 
>> Example: In a typical eIBRS enabled system, such as Intel SPR, the
>> SPEC_CTRL may be commonly set to val == 1 to reflect eIBRS enablement;
>> however, SPEC_CTRL_BHI_DIS_S causes val == 1025. If the guests that
>> KVM is virtualizing do not also set the guest side value == 1025,
>> KVM will constantly have to wrmsr toggle the guest vs host value on
>> both entry and exit, delaying both.
> 
> Putting aside the security concern, this patch isn't a net positive
> because it causes additional overhead to guests with spec_ctrl = 1025.

See my other note with a different approach and testing to match.

Responding to this point here that this would require VMM to expose BHI_CTRL
which for example QEMU does not, so this is not yet a problem at least
today

> 
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Jon Kohler <jon@...anix.com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c | 12 ++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c
>> index 45675da354f3..df7535f5e882 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c
>> @@ -1662,8 +1662,16 @@ static void __init bhi_select_mitigation(void)
>> return;
>> }
>> 
>> - /* Mitigate in hardware if supported */
>> - if (spec_ctrl_bhi_dis())
>> + /*
>> + * Mitigate in hardware if appropriate.
>> + * Note: for vmexit only, do not mitigate in hardware to avoid changing
>> + * the value of MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL to include SPEC_CTRL_BHI_DIS_S. If a
>> + * guest does not also set their own SPEC_CTRL to include this, KVM has
>> + * to toggle on every vmexit and vmentry if the host value does not
>> + * match the guest value. Instead, depend on software loop mitigation
>> + * only.
>> + */
>> + if (bhi_mitigation != BHI_MITIGATION_VMEXIT_ONLY && spec_ctrl_bhi_dis())
>> return;
>> 
>> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64))
>> -- 
>> 2.43.0
>> 
>>