Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     "Luck\, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        "Christopherson\, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Cc:     Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Pu Wen <puwen@hygon.cn>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>,
        Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@microsoft.com>,
        Dirk Hohndel <dirkhh@vmware.com>,
        Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
        Tony W Wang-oc <TonyWWang-oc@zhaoxin.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@linux.intel.com>,
        "Mallick\, Asit K" <asit.k.mallick@intel.com>,
        Gordon Tetlow <gordon@tetlows.org>,
        David Kaplan <David.Kaplan@amd.com>
Subject: RE: TDX #VE in SYSCALL gap (was: [RFD] x86: Curing the exception and syscall trainwreck in hardware)
In-Reply-To: <dfce335fefe043868301bacf57120759@intel.com>
References: <875z98jkof.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <3babf003-6854-e50a-34ca-c87ce4169c77@citrix.com> <20200825043959.GF15046@sjchrist-ice> <CALCETrUP1T2k3UzZMsXMfAD83xbYEG+nAv3a-LeBjNW+=ijJAg@mail.gmail.com> <20200825171903.GA20660@sjchrist-ice> <CALCETrWy2x-RByfknjjKxRbE0LBPk2Ugj1d58xYHb91ogbfnvA@mail.gmail.com> <dfce335fefe043868301bacf57120759@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Aug 2020 21:49:07 +0200
Message-ID: <87ft8ay098.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 25 2020 at 17:35, Tony Luck wrote:
>> > Or malicious hypervisor action, and that's a problem.
>> >
>> > Suppose the hypervisor remaps a GPA used in the SYSCALL gap (e.g. the
>> > actual SYSCALL text or the first memory it accesses -- I don't have a
>> > TDX spec so I don't know the details).
>
> Is it feasible to defend against a malicious (or buggy) hypervisor?
>
> Obviously, we can't leave holes that guests can exploit. But the hypervisor
> can crash the system no matter how clever TDX is.

If it crashes and burns reliably then fine, but is that guaranteed?

I have serious doubts about that given the history and fragility of all
of this and I really have zero interest in dealing with the fallout a
year from now.

Thanks,

        tglx