linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/5] x86/boot, KVM: Move VMXON/VMXOFF handling from KVM to CPU lifecycle

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: <aMmebJJ2m1A5O-13@google.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2025 10:29:16 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: "Xin Li (Intel)" <xin@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, 
	mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, 
	hpa@...or.com, rafael@...nel.org, pavel@...nel.org, brgerst@...il.com, 
	david.kaplan@....com, peterz@...radead.org, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, 
	kprateek.nayak@....com, arjan@...ux.intel.com, chao.gao@...el.com, 
	rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/5] x86/boot, KVM: Move VMXON/VMXOFF handling from
 KVM to CPU lifecycle

On Thu, Sep 11, 2025, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 9/11/25 07:20, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > VPID and ASID allocation need to be managed system-wide, otherwise
> > running KVM alongside another hypervisor-like entity will result in
> > data corruption due to shared TLB state.
> What other hypervisor-like entities are out there?

gVisor, VMware Workstation, Virtual Box, and maybe a few more?  Though the three
named are all moving to KVM (Virtual Box may already have full KVM support).
But it's not just existing entities, it's also the fact that lack of common
virtualization infrastructure has definitely deterred others from trying to
upstream non-KVM hypervisors (or hypervisor-like projects).

Now, that's arguably been a good thing in hindsight, e.g. gVisor, VMware, and
Virtual Box wouldn't have switched to KVM had upstream accepted their custom
drivers/hypervisors.  But I like to give us the benefit of the doubt in the sense
that, had someone tried to upstream a KVM-like hypervisor, I think we would have
redirected them into KVM and figured out how to close any gaps, as opposed to
blindly accepting a newfangled hypervisors.

However, no one even so much as proposes new hypervisor-like entities in upstream,
at least not for x86, because the barrier to doing so is extremely high due to KVM
having a stranglehold on all things virtualization.  And even if no one ever lands
another hypervisor-like thing in upstream, I think KVM (and the kernel at-large)
would benefit if patches were at least posted, e.g. would help identify areas of
opportunity and/or flaws in KVM.

> The TDX module needs (or will need) VMXON for some things that aren't
> strictly for virtualization. But what other entities are out there?

The end usage for TDX might not be virtualization focused, but the _kernel's_
usage of VMXON is absolutely for virtualization.  SEAMCALL/SEAMRET are literally
VM-Exit/VM-Enter.