linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/CPU/AMD: Clear virtualized VMLOAD/VMSAVE on Zen4 client

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: <65fdc558-21e9-4311-b2b0-8b35131c7aac@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 09:58:51 -0600
From: Mario Limonciello <superm1@...nel.org>
To: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>,
 Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
 "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>,
 Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>, Brijesh Singh
 <brijesh.singh@....com>,
 "open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Mario Limonciello
 <mario.limonciello@....com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/CPU/AMD: Clear virtualized VMLOAD/VMSAVE on Zen4
 client

On 11/6/2024 09:48, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-11-06 at 07:15 -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 06, 2024, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>>> On 11/6/2024 09:03, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>>> +KVM, given that this quite obviously affects KVM...
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 05, 2024, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>>>>> From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
>>>>>
>>>>> A number of Zen4 client SoCs advertise the ability to use virtualized
>>>>> VMLOAD/VMSAVE, but using these instructions is reported to be a cause
>>>>> of a random host reboot.
>>>>>
>>>>> These instructions aren't intended to be advertised on Zen4 client
>>>>> so clear the capability.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>>>>> Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=219009
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c | 11 +++++++++++
>>>>>    1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
>>>>> index 015971adadfc7..ecd42c2b3242e 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
>>>>> @@ -924,6 +924,17 @@ static void init_amd_zen4(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>>>>>    {
>>>>>    	if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
>>>>>    		msr_set_bit(MSR_ZEN4_BP_CFG, MSR_ZEN4_BP_CFG_SHARED_BTB_FIX_BIT);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	/*
>>>>> +	 * These Zen4 SoCs advertise support for virtualized VMLOAD/VMSAVE
>>>>> +	 * in some BIOS versions but they can lead to random host reboots.
>>>>
>>>> Uh, CPU bug?  Erratum?
>>>
>>> BIOS bug.  Those shouldn't have been advertised.
> 
> Hi!
> 
> My question is, why would AMD drop support intentionally for VLS on client machines?
> 
> I understand that there might be a errata, and I don't object disabling the
> feature because of this.
> 
> But hearing that 'These instructions aren't intended to be advertised' means that
> AMD intends to stop supporting virtualization on client systems or at least partially
> do so.

Don't read into it too far.  It's just a BIOS problem with those 
instructions "specifically" on the processors indicated here.  Other 
processors (for example Zen 5 client processors) do correctly advertise 
support where applicable.

When they launched those bits weren't supposed to be set to indicate 
support, but BIOS did set them.

> 
> That worries me. So far AMD was much better that Intel supporting most of the
> features across all of the systems which is very helpful in various scenarios,
> and this is very appreciated by the community.
> 
> Speaking strictly personally here, as a AMD fan.
> 
 > Best regards,> 	Maxim Levitsky
> 
> 
>>
>> Why not?  "but they can lead to random host reboots" is a description of the
>> symptom, not an explanation for why KVM is unable to use a feature that is
>> apparently support by the CPU.
>>
>> And if the CPU doesn't actually support virtualized VMLOAD/VMSAVE, then this is
>> a much bigger problem, because it means KVM is effectively giving the guest read
>> and write access to all of host memory.
>>
> 
> 

I'm gathering that what supported means to you and what it means to me 
are different things.  "Architecturally" the instructions for 
virtualized VMLOAD/VMSAVE exist.  There are problems with them on these 
processors, and for that reason the BIOS was not supposed to set those 
bits but it did.