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;
Date:   Mon, 25 Jan 2021 12:13:10 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Like Xu <like.xu@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        "Xu, Like" <like.xu@intel.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, eranian@google.com,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, wei.w.wang@intel.com,
        luwei.kang@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] KVM: x86/pmu: Add support to enable Guest PEBS
 via DS
Message-ID: <YA6nxuM5Stlolk5x@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20210104131542.495413-1-like.xu@linux.intel.com>
 <YACXQwBPI8OFV1T+@google.com>
 <f8a8e4e2-e0b1-8e68-81d4-044fb62045d5@intel.com>
 <YAHXlWmeR9p6JZm2@google.com>
 <20210115182700.byczztx3vjhsq3p3@two.firstfloor.org>
 <YAHkOiQsxMfOMYvp@google.com>
 <YAqhPPkexq+dQ5KD@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <eb30d86f-6492-d6e3-3a24-f58c724f68fd@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <eb30d86f-6492-d6e3-3a24-f58c724f68fd@linux.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:08:22PM +0800, Like Xu wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On 2021/1/22 17:56, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:51:38AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > > I'm asking about ucode/hardare.  Is the "guest pebs buffer write -> PEBS PMI"
> > > > > guaranteed to be atomic?
> > > > 
> > > > Of course not.
> > > 
> > > So there's still a window where the guest could observe the bad counter index,
> > > correct?
> > 
> > Guest could do a hypercall to fix up the DS area before it tries to read
> > it I suppose. Or the HV could expose the index mapping and have the
> > guest fix up it.
> 
> A weird (malicious) guest would read unmodified PEBS records in the
> guest PEBS buffer from other vCPUs without the need for hypercall or
> index mapping from HV.
> 
> Do you see any security issues on this host index leak window?
> 
> > 
> > Adding a little virt crud on top shouldn't be too hard.
> > 
> 
> The patches 13-17 in this version has modified the guest PEBS buffer
> to correct the index mapping information in the guest PEBS records.

Right, but given there is no atomicity between writing the DS area and
triggering the PMI (as already established earlier in this thread), a
malicious guest can already access this information, no?