Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <d9be9385-4101-2e9e-c6d7-1d980697c02f@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 May 2023 17:50:17 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/102.0 Thunderbird/102.10.1
From:   Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 02/11] KVM: x86: Advertise CPUID.7.2.EDX and
 RRSBA_CTRL support
To:     Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, Jiaan Lu <jiaan.lu@intel.com>,
        Zhang Chen <chen.zhang@intel.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230414062545.270178-1-chao.gao@intel.com>
 <20230414062545.270178-3-chao.gao@intel.com>
 <a88b2504-b79b-83d6-383e-a948f9da662b@intel.com>
 <ZGLkvlx5W0JStTjD@chao-email>
 <9c75663c-6363-34e7-8341-d8f719365768@intel.com>
 <ZGLyEhKH+MoCY/R4@chao-email>
 <11b515b3-bb5a-bea1-ad01-caffdd151bf6@intel.com>
 <ZGNIN7O8BErVP88x@chao-email>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ZGNIN7O8BErVP88x@chao-email>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 5/16/2023 5:09 PM, Chao Gao wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 03:03:15PM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
>> On 5/16/2023 11:01 AM, Chao Gao wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 10:22:22AM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
>>>>>> I think we need to fix this bug at first.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no idea how to fix the "bug" without intercepting the MSR. The
>>>>> performance penalty makes me think intercepting the MSR is not a viable
>>>>> solution.
>>>>
>>>> I thought correctness always takes higher priority over performance.
>>>
>>> It is generally true. however, there are situations where we should make
>>> trade-offs between correctness and other factors (like performance):
>>>
>>> E.g., instructions without control bits, to be 100% compliant with CPU
>>> spec, in theory, VMMs can trap/decode every instruction and inject #UD
>>> if a guest tries to use some instructions it shouldn't.
>>
>> This is the virtualization hole. IMHO, they are different things.
> 
> what are the differences between?
> 1. Executing some unsupported instructions should cause #UD. But this is allowed
>     in a KVM guest.
> 2. Setting some reserved bits in SPEC_CTRL MSR should cause #GP. But this is
>     allowed in a KVM guest.

The difference is that for virtualization hole, there is no way but 
intercept and decode every instruction if we want the correctness. It's 
a disaster.

But for MSR virtualization, we do have an option and we don't need to 
trap every instruction. MSR interception is the designated mechanism to 
correctly and elegantly virtualize the MSR.

>>
>> Pass through MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL was introduced in commit d28b387fb74d
>> ("KVM/VMX: Allow direct access to MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL"). At that time there
>> was only a few bits defined, and the changelog called out that
>>
>>   No attempt is made to handle STIBP here, intentionally. Filtering
>>   STIBP may be added in a future patch, which may require trapping all
>>   writes if we don't want to pass it through directly to the guest.
>>
>> Per my undesrstanding, it implied that we need to re-visit it when more bits
>> added instead of following the pass-through design siliently.
> 
> I don't object to re-visiting the design. My point is that to prevent guests from
> setting RRSBA_CTRL/BHI_CTRL when they are not advertised isn't a strong
> justfication for intercepting the MSR. STIBP and other bits (except IBRS) have
> the same problem. And the gain of fixing this is too small.
> 
> If passing through the SPEC_CTRL MSR to guests might cause security issues, I
> would agree to intercept accesses to the MSR.

I never buy it. How to interpret the security? If the user wants to hide 
one feature from guest but KVM allows it when KVM does have a reasonable 
way to hide it. Does it violate the security?