lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 7/7] KVM: X86: Add user-space access interface for CET MSRs
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 01:58:59PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 04:52:22PM +0800, Yang Weijiang wrote:
> > There're two different places storing Guest CET states, states
> > managed with XSAVES/XRSTORS, as restored/saved
> > in previous patch, can be read/write directly from/to the MSRs.
> > For those stored in VMCS fields, they're access via vmcs_read/
> > vmcs_write.
> >
> >
> > +#define CET_MSR_RSVD_BITS_1 0x3
> > +#define CET_MSR_RSVD_BITS_2 (0xF << 6)
> > +
> > +static bool cet_msr_write_allowed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr)
> > +{
> > + u32 index = msr->index;
> > + u64 data = msr->data;
> > + u32 high_word = data >> 32;
> > +
> > + if ((index == MSR_IA32_U_CET || index == MSR_IA32_S_CET) &&
> > + (data & CET_MSR_RSVD_BITS_2))
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + if (is_64_bit_mode(vcpu)) {
> > + if (is_noncanonical_address(data & PAGE_MASK, vcpu))
>
> I don't think this is correct. MSRs that contain an address usually only
> fault on a non-canonical value and do the non-canonical check regardless
> of mode. E.g. VM-Enter's consistency checks on SYSENTER_E{I,S}P only care
> about a canonical address and are not dependent on mode, and SYSENTER
> itself states that bits 63:32 are ignored in 32-bit mode. I assume the
> same is true here.
The spec. reads like this: Must be machine canonical when written on
parts that support 64 bit mode. On parts that do not support 64 bit mode, the bits 63:32 are
reserved and must be 0.

> If that is indeed the case, what about adding these to the common canonical
> check in __kvm_set_msr()? That'd cut down on the boilerplate here and
> might make it easier to audit KVM's canonical checks.
>
> > + return false;
> > + else if ((index == MSR_IA32_PL0_SSP ||
> > + index == MSR_IA32_PL1_SSP ||
> > + index == MSR_IA32_PL2_SSP ||
> > + index == MSR_IA32_PL3_SSP) &&
> > + (data & CET_MSR_RSVD_BITS_1))
> > + return false;
> > + } else {
> > + if (msr->index == MSR_IA32_INT_SSP_TAB)
> > + return false;
> > + else if ((index == MSR_IA32_U_CET ||
> > + index == MSR_IA32_S_CET ||
> > + index == MSR_IA32_PL0_SSP ||
> > + index == MSR_IA32_PL1_SSP ||
> > + index == MSR_IA32_PL2_SSP ||
> > + index == MSR_IA32_PL3_SSP) &&
> > + (high_word & ~0ul))
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return true;
> > +}
>
> This helper seems like overkill, e.g. it's filled with index-specific
> checks, but is called from code that has already switched on the index.
> Open coding the individual checks is likely more readable and would require
> less code, especially if the canonical checks are cleaned up.
>
I'm afraid if the checks are not wrapped in a helper, there're many
repeat checking-code, that's why I'm using a wrapper.

> > +
> > +static bool cet_msr_access_allowed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr)
> > +{
> > + u64 kvm_xss;
> > + u32 index = msr->index;
> > +
> > + if (is_guest_mode(vcpu))
> > + return false;
>
> I may have missed this in an earlier discussion, does CET not support
> nesting?
>
I don't want to make CET avaible to nested guest at time being, first to
make it available to L1 guest first. So I need to avoid exposing any CET
CPUID/MSRs to a nested guest.

> > +
> > + kvm_xss = kvm_supported_xss();
> > +
> > + switch (index) {
> > + case MSR_IA32_PL0_SSP ... MSR_IA32_PL3_SSP:
> > + if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SHSTK))
> > + return false;
> > + if (!msr->host_initiated) {
> > + if (!guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_SHSTK))
> > + return false;
> > + } else {
>
> This looks wrong, WRMSR from the guest only checks CPUID, it doesn't check
> kvm_xss.
>
OOPs, I need to add the check, thank you!

> > + if (index == MSR_IA32_PL3_SSP) {
> > + if (!(kvm_xss & XFEATURE_MASK_CET_USER))
> > + return false;
> > + } else {
> > + if (!(kvm_xss & XFEATURE_MASK_CET_KERNEL))
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + break;
> > + case MSR_IA32_U_CET:
> > + case MSR_IA32_S_CET:
>
> Rather than bundle everything in a single access_allowed() helper, it might
> be easier to have separate helpers for each class of MSR. Except for the
> guest_mode() check, there's no overlap between the classes.
>
Sure, let me double check the code.

> > + if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SHSTK) &&
> > + !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_IBT))
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + if (!msr->host_initiated) {
> > + if (!guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_SHSTK) &&
> > + !guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_IBT))
> > + return false;
> > + } else if (index == MSR_IA32_U_CET &&
> > + !(kvm_xss & XFEATURE_MASK_CET_USER))
>
> Same comment about guest not checking kvm_xss.
>
OK.

> > + return false;
> > + break;
> > + case MSR_IA32_INT_SSP_TAB:
> > + if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SHSTK))
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + if (!msr->host_initiated &&
> > + !guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_SHSTK))
> > + return false;
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > + return true;
> > +}
> > /*
> > * Reads an msr value (of 'msr_index') into 'pdata'.
> > * Returns 0 on success, non-0 otherwise.
> > @@ -1788,6 +1880,26 @@ static int vmx_get_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
> > else
> > msr_info->data = vmx->pt_desc.guest.addr_a[index / 2];
> > break;
> > + case MSR_IA32_S_CET:
> > + if (!cet_msr_access_allowed(vcpu, msr_info))
> > + return 1;
> > + msr_info->data = vmcs_readl(GUEST_S_CET);
> > + break;
> > + case MSR_IA32_INT_SSP_TAB:
> > + if (!cet_msr_access_allowed(vcpu, msr_info))
> > + return 1;
> > + msr_info->data = vmcs_readl(GUEST_INTR_SSP_TABLE);
> > + break;
> > + case MSR_IA32_U_CET:
> > + if (!cet_msr_access_allowed(vcpu, msr_info))
> > + return 1;
> > + rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_U_CET, msr_info->data);
> > + break;
> > + case MSR_IA32_PL0_SSP ... MSR_IA32_PL3_SSP:
> > + if (!cet_msr_access_allowed(vcpu, msr_info))
> > + return 1;
> > + rdmsrl(msr_info->index, msr_info->data);
> > + break;
> > case MSR_TSC_AUX:
> > if (!msr_info->host_initiated &&
> > !guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_RDTSCP))
> > @@ -2039,6 +2151,34 @@ static int vmx_set_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
> > else
> > vmx->pt_desc.guest.addr_a[index / 2] = data;
> > break;
> > + case MSR_IA32_S_CET:
> > + if (!cet_msr_access_allowed(vcpu, msr_info))
> > + return 1;
> > + if (!cet_msr_write_allowed(vcpu, msr_info))
> > + return 1;
> > + vmcs_writel(GUEST_S_CET, data);
> > + break;
> > + case MSR_IA32_INT_SSP_TAB:
> > + if (!cet_msr_access_allowed(vcpu, msr_info))
> > + return 1;
> > + if (!cet_msr_write_allowed(vcpu, msr_info))
> > + return 1;
> > + vmcs_writel(GUEST_INTR_SSP_TABLE, data);
> > + break;
> > + case MSR_IA32_U_CET:
> > + if (!cet_msr_access_allowed(vcpu, msr_info))
> > + return 1;
> > + if (!cet_msr_write_allowed(vcpu, msr_info))
> > + return 1;
> > + wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_U_CET, data);
> > + break;
> > + case MSR_IA32_PL0_SSP ... MSR_IA32_PL3_SSP:
> > + if (!cet_msr_access_allowed(vcpu, msr_info))
> > + return 1;
> > + if (!cet_msr_write_allowed(vcpu, msr_info))
> > + return 1;
> > + wrmsrl(msr_info->index, data);
> > + break;
> > case MSR_TSC_AUX:
> > if (!msr_info->host_initiated &&
> > !guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_RDTSCP))
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > index 6275a75d5802..1bbe4550da90 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > @@ -1143,6 +1143,9 @@ static u32 msrs_to_save[] = {
> > MSR_IA32_RTIT_ADDR1_A, MSR_IA32_RTIT_ADDR1_B,
> > MSR_IA32_RTIT_ADDR2_A, MSR_IA32_RTIT_ADDR2_B,
> > MSR_IA32_RTIT_ADDR3_A, MSR_IA32_RTIT_ADDR3_B,
> > + MSR_IA32_XSS, MSR_IA32_U_CET, MSR_IA32_S_CET,
> > + MSR_IA32_PL0_SSP, MSR_IA32_PL1_SSP, MSR_IA32_PL2_SSP,
> > + MSR_IA32_PL3_SSP, MSR_IA32_INT_SSP_TAB,
> > };
> >
> > static unsigned num_msrs_to_save;
> > --
> > 2.17.2
> >

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-11 03:18    [W:0.076 / U:8.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site