Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [patch V2 04/25] x86/apic: Make apic_pending_intr_clear() more
 robust
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>,
        Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
References: <20190704155145.617706117@linutronix.de>
 <20190704155608.636478018@linutronix.de>
 <958a67c2-4dc0-52e6-43b2-1ebd25a59232@citrix.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1907052213360.3648@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <3e9c8e2b-db98-6796-5241-7405f8c57564@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 5 Jul 2019 22:49:55 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1907052213360.3648@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 05/07/19 22:25, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> In practice, this makes Linux vulnerable to CVE-2011-1898 / XSA-3, which
> I'm disappointed to see wasn't shared with other software vendors at the
> time.

Oh, that brings back memories.  At the time I was working on Xen, so I
remember that CVE.  IIRC there was some mitigation but the fix was
basically to print a very scary error message if you used VT-d without
interrupt remapping.  Maybe force the user to add something on the Xen
command line too?

> The more interesting question is whether this is all relevant. If I
> understood the issue correctly then this is mitigated by proper interrupt
> remapping.

Yes, and for Linux we're good I think.  VFIO by default refuses to use
the IOMMU if interrupt remapping is absent or disabled, and KVM's own
(pre-VFIO) IOMMU support was removed a couple years ago.  I guess the
secure boot lockdown patches should outlaw VFIO's
allow_unsafe_interrupts option, but that's it.

> Is there any serious usage of virtualization w/o interrupt remapping left
> or have the machines which are not capable been retired already?

I think they were already starting to disappear in 2011, as I don't
remember much worry about customers that were using systems without it.

Paolo