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:   Fri, 9 Jul 2021 16:49:40 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: X86: Also reload the debug registers before
 kvm_x86->run() when the host is using them
Message-ID: <YOh+JBWBDtFQHNMW@google.com>
References: <20210628172632.81029-1-jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
 <46e0aaf1-b7cd-288f-e4be-ac59aa04908f@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <46e0aaf1-b7cd-288f-e4be-ac59aa04908f@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 08, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 28/06/21 19:26, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com>
> > 
> > When the host is using debug registers but the guest is not using them
> > nor is the guest in guest-debug state, the kvm code does not reset
> > the host debug registers before kvm_x86->run().  Rather, it relies on
> > the hardware vmentry instruction to automatically reset the dr7 registers
> > which ensures that the host breakpoints do not affect the guest.
> > 
> > But there are still problems:
> > 	o The addresses of the host breakpoints can leak into the guest
> > 	  and the guest may use these information to attack the host.
> 
> I don't think this is true, because DRn reads would exit (if they don't,
> switch_db_regs would be nonzero).  But otherwise it makes sense to do at
> least the DR7 write, and we might as well do all of them.
> 
> > 	o It violates the non-instrumentable nature around VM entry and
> > 	  exit.  For example, when a host breakpoint is set on
> > 	  vcpu->arch.cr2, #DB will hit aftr kvm_guest_enter_irqoff().
> > 
> > Beside the problems, the logic is not consistent either. When the guest
> > debug registers are active, the host breakpoints are reset before
> > kvm_x86->run(). But when the guest debug registers are inactive, the
> > host breakpoints are delayed to be disabled.  The host tracing tools may
> > see different results depending on there is any guest running or not.
> 
> More precisely, the host tracing tools may see different results depending
> on what the guest is doing.
> 
> Queued (with fixed commit message), thanks!
> 
> Paolo
> 
> > To fix the problems, we also reload the debug registers before
> > kvm_x86->run() when the host is using them whenever the guest is using
> > them or not.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com>
> > ---
> >   arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 2 +-
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > index b594275d49b5..cce316655d3c 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > @@ -9320,7 +9320,7 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >   	if (test_thread_flag(TIF_NEED_FPU_LOAD))
> >   		switch_fpu_return();
> > -	if (unlikely(vcpu->arch.switch_db_regs)) {
> > +	if (unlikely(vcpu->arch.switch_db_regs || hw_breakpoint_active())) {
> >   		set_debugreg(0, 7);

I would prefer zero only dr7, e.g.

	if (unlikely(vcpu->arch.switch_db_regs)) {
		...
	} else if (hw_breakpoint_active()) {
		set_debugreg(0, 7);
	}

Stuffing all DRs isn't a bug because hw_breakpoint_restore() will restore all DRs,
but loading stale state into DRs is weird.

> >   		set_debugreg(vcpu->arch.eff_db[0], 0);
> >   		set_debugreg(vcpu->arch.eff_db[1], 1);
> > 
>