Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-18299-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 11:34:05 -0800
In-Reply-To: <b6ed5961a3a73de532e2ff0610f43ca129151199.camel@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <5f57ce03-9568-4739-b02d-e9fac6ed381a@intel.com>
 <6179ddcb25c683bd178e74e7e2455cee63ba74de.camel@intel.com>
 <ZZdLG5W5u19PsnTo@google.com> <a2344e2143ef2b9eca0d153c86091e58e596709d.camel@intel.com>
 <ZZdSSzCqvd-3sdBL@google.com> <8f070910-2b2e-425d-995e-dfa03a7695de@intel.com>
 <ZZgsipXoXTKyvCZT@google.com> <9abd8400d25835dd2a6fd41b0104e3c666ee8a13.camel@intel.com>
 <CALMp9eRMoWOS5oAywQCdEsCuTkDqmsVG=Do11FkthD5amr96WA@mail.gmail.com> <b6ed5961a3a73de532e2ff0610f43ca129151199.camel@intel.com>
Message-ID: <ZZhVzNb4QHzGJO6W@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/26] Enable CET Virtualization
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Rick P Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
Cc: "jmattson@google.com" <jmattson@google.com>, Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>, 
	Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@intel.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, 
	"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>, "john.allen@amd.com" <john.allen@amd.com>, 
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "mlevitsk@redhat.com" <mlevitsk@redhat.com>, 
	"pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>, "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Fri, Jan 05, 2024, Rick P Edgecombe wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-01-05 at 10:09 -0800, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > > 3. Task switching
> > 
> > Sigh. KVM is forced to emulate task switch, because the hardware is
> > incapable of virtualizing it. How hard would it be to make KVM's
> > task-switch emulation CET-aware?
> 
> (I am not too familiar with this part of the arch).
> 
> See SDM Vol 3a, chapter 7.3, number 8 and 15. The behavior is around
> actual task switching. At first glance, it looks annoying at least. It
> would need to do a CMPXCHG to guest memory at some points and take care
> to not implement the "Complex Shadow-Stack Updates" behavior.
> 
> But, would anyone use it? I'm not aware of any 32 bit supervisor shadow
> stack support out there. So maybe it is ok to just punt to userspace in
> this case?

Yeah, I think KVM can punt.