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;
Date:   Tue, 7 Apr 2020 17:24:12 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        hch@infradead.org, sean.j.christopherson@intel.com,
        mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org,
        kenny@panix.com, jeyu@kernel.org, rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, fenghua.yu@intel.com, xiaoyao.li@intel.com,
        nadav.amit@gmail.com, thellstrom@vmware.com, tony.luck@intel.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, jannh@google.com, keescook@chromium.org,
        David.Laight@aculab.com, dcovelli@vmware.com, mhiramat@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86,module: Detect VMX vs SLD conflicts
Message-ID: <20200407152412.GE20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200407110236.930134290@infradead.org>
 <20200407111007.352324393@infradead.org>
 <20200407143543.GB876345@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200407143543.GB876345@kroah.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 04:35:43PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 01:02:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > It turns out that with Split-Lock-Detect enabled (default) any VMX
> > hypervisor needs at least a little modification in order to not blindly
> > inject the #AC into the guest without the guest being ready for it.
> > 
> > Since there is no telling which module implements a hypervisor, scan
> > all out-of-tree modules' text and look for VMX instructions and refuse
> > to load it when SLD is enabled (default) and the module isn't marked
> > 'sld_safe'.
> > 
> > Hypervisors, which have been modified and are known to work correctly,
> > can add:
> > 
> >   MODULE_INFO(sld_safe, "Y");
> > 
> > to explicitly tell the module loader they're good.
> 
> What's to keep any out-of-tree module from adding this same module info
> "flag" and just lie about it?  Isn't that what you are trying to catch
> here, or is it a case of, "if you lie, your code will break" as well?

If they lie they get to keep both pieces.

The thing I worry about is them lying about "intree", is there anything
that avoids that?