linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] Introduce CET supervisor state support

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Z9mQN3gPpcWPGTwA@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 23:24:39 +0800
From: Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
CC: <tglx@...utronix.de>, <x86@...nel.org>, <seanjc@...gle.com>,
	<pbonzini@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	<peterz@...radead.org>, <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
	<weijiang.yang@...el.com>, <john.allen@....com>, <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] Introduce CET supervisor state support

On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 11:09:42AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>On 3/7/25 08:41, Chao Gao wrote:
>> case |IA32_XSS[12] | Space | RFBM[12] | Drop%	
>> -----+-------------+-------+----------+------
>>   1  |	   0	   | None  |	0     |  0.0%
>>   2  |	   1	   | None  |	0     |  0.2%
>>   3  |	   1	   | 24B?  |	1     |  0.2%
>
>So, 0.2% is still, what, dozens of cycles? Are you sure that it really
>takes the CPU dozens of cycles to skip over the feature during XSAVE?
>
>If it really turns out to be this measurable, we should probably follow
>up with the folks that implement XSAVE and see what's going on under the
>covers.

I reran the performance tests and observed a run-to-run variation of 0.4%
to 0.7%. So, I don't think there is any measurable performance difference.
I will update the performance statements in the cover letter.

>
>On a separate note, I was bugging Thomas a bit on IRC. His memory was
>that the AMX-era FPU rework only expected KVM to support user features.
>You might want to dig through the history a bit and see if _that_ was
>ever properly addressed because that would change the problem you're
>trying to solve.

I went through the email discussions and found only one relevant thread:

https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/87wnmf66m5.ffs@tglx/#t

where Thomas mentioned that guest_perm would be set as follows:

	guest_fpu::__state_perm = supported_xcr0 & xstate_get_group_perm();

If implemented this way, KVM would only support user features. However, the
committed change is:

980fe2fddcff ("x86/fpu: Extend fpu_xstate_prctl() with guest permissions")

In this change, fpu->guest_perm is copied from fpu->perm:

+	/* Same defaults for guests */
+	fpu->guest_perm = fpu->perm;

There are indeed some issues with enabling supervisor features for guest
FPUs, but they have been addressed by recent changes in the tip-tree ([1],
[2]) and patch 1 of this series.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250218141045.85201-1-stanspas@amazon.de/
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250317140613.1761633-1-chao.gao@intel.com/