[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b5d791f9-1708-9715-e03d-4618d1b27d05@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 07:41:04 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: John Andersen <john.s.andersen@...el.com>, corbet@....net,
pbonzini@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, shuah@...nel.org,
sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, liran.alon@...cle.com, drjones@...hat.com,
rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, kristen@...ux.intel.com
Cc: vkuznets@...hat.com, wanpengli@...cent.com, jmattson@...gle.com,
joro@...tes.org, mchehab+huawei@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
paulmck@...nel.org, pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com, jgross@...e.com,
mike.kravetz@...cle.com, oneukum@...e.com, luto@...nel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, fenghua.yu@...el.com, reinette.chatre@...el.com,
vineela.tummalapalli@...el.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, caoj.fnst@...fujitsu.com, bhe@...hat.com,
nivedita@...m.mit.edu, keescook@...omium.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
eric.auger@...hat.com, aaronlewis@...gle.com, peterx@...hat.com,
makarandsonare@...gle.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] X86: Use KVM CR pin MSRs
On 6/17/20 12:07 PM, John Andersen wrote:
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> index 89386f6f3ab6..54fb2b5ab8fc 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> @@ -3926,6 +3926,17 @@
> [KNL] Number of legacy pty's. Overwrites compiled-in
> default number.
>
> + pv_cr_pin [SECURITY,X86]
> + Enable paravirtualized control register pinning. When
> + running paravirutalized under KVM, request that KVM not
> + allow the guest to disable kernel protection features
> + set in CPU control registers. Specifying this option
> + will disable kexec (and crashkernel). If kexec support
> + has not been compiled into the kernel and host KVM
> + supports paravirtualized control register pinning, it
> + will be active by default without the need to specify
> + this parameter.
I'm writing this last in my review. I guess I should have read this
first. You'll see later in my review how this confused me. This
behavior needs to be documented elsewhere. Code comments would be best.
Let's say kexec is config'd off. This feature is enabled by default and
crashes the kernel in early boot. I have no way to disable this fancy
new feature. Is that what we want?
I also think that instead of having to *enable* this explicitly when
kexec is present, maybe we should have a "disable_kexec" parameter. If
kexec is configured out or disabled on the command-line, then you can
turn CR pinning on.
If someone fails to kexec() because of this feature, there's no way in
hell they'll ever track down "pv_cr_pin" on the command-line as the
cause. The might have a chance of finding disable_kexec, though.
Wouldn't it also be nice to add a single printk() the first time a kexec
fails because of this feature being present?
> quiet [KNL] Disable most log messages
>
> r128= [HW,DRM]
> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> index 67f6a40b5e93..bc0b27483001 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> @@ -800,6 +800,7 @@ config KVM_GUEST
> bool "KVM Guest support (including kvmclock)"
> depends on PARAVIRT
> select PARAVIRT_CLOCK
> + select PARAVIRT_CR_PIN
> select ARCH_CPUIDLE_HALTPOLL
> default y
> ---help---
> @@ -835,6 +836,15 @@ config PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING
> config PARAVIRT_CLOCK
> bool
>
> +config PARAVIRT_CR_PIN
> + bool "Paravirtual bit pinning for CR0 and CR4"
> + depends on KVM_GUEST
> + help
> + Select this option to have the virtualised guest request that the
> + hypervisor disallow it from disabling protections set in control
> + registers. The hypervisor will prevent exploits from disabling
> + features such as SMEP, SMAP, UMIP, and WP.
I'm confused. Does this add support for ""Paravirtual bit pinning", or
actually tell the guest to request pinning by default?
It says "Select this option to have the virtualised guest request...",
which makes it sound like it affects the default rather than the
availability of the option.
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_CR_PIN
> +void __init kvm_paravirt_cr_pinning_init(void);
> +void kvm_setup_paravirt_cr_pinning(unsigned long cr0_pinned_bits,
> + unsigned long cr4_pinned_bits);
> +#else
> +static inline void kvm_paravirt_cr_pinning_init(void)
> +{
> + return;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void kvm_setup_paravirt_cr_pinning(unsigned long cr0_pinned_bits,
> + unsigned long cr4_pinned_bits)
> +{
> + return;
> +}
> +#endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT_CR_PIN */
For stuff like this that isn't the least bit performance sensitive, I
usually don't bother with header stubs. Just do the function
declaration and then check the config option in the .c code. It saves
#ifdef noise in the header.
> #endif /* _ASM_X86_KVM_PARA_H */
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> index 921e67086a00..ee17223b1fa8 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
> #include <linux/smp.h>
> #include <linux/io.h>
> #include <linux/syscore_ops.h>
> +#include <linux/kvm_para.h>
>
> #include <asm/stackprotector.h>
> #include <asm/perf_event.h>
> @@ -416,6 +417,8 @@ static void __init setup_cr_pinning(void)
> mask = (X86_CR4_SMEP | X86_CR4_SMAP | X86_CR4_UMIP);
> cr4_pinned_bits = this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.cr4) & mask;
> static_key_enable(&cr_pinning.key);
> +
> + kvm_setup_paravirt_cr_pinning(X86_CR0_WP, cr4_pinned_bits);
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -1551,6 +1554,8 @@ void identify_secondary_cpu(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> mtrr_ap_init();
> validate_apic_and_package_id(c);
> x86_spec_ctrl_setup_ap();
> +
> + kvm_setup_paravirt_cr_pinning(X86_CR0_WP, cr4_pinned_bits);
> }
WP looks like it get special handling here. But, why it is special goes
unmentioned in the changelog or comments.
Why is it special?
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_CR_PIN
> +static int kvm_paravirt_cr_pinning_enabled __ro_after_init;
> +
> +void __init kvm_paravirt_cr_pinning_init(void)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE
> + if (!cmdline_find_option_bool(boot_command_line, "pv_cr_pin"))
> + return;
> +
> + /* Paravirtualized CR pinning is currently incompatible with kexec */
> + kexec_load_disabled = 1;
> +#endif
> +
> + kvm_paravirt_cr_pinning_enabled = 1;
> +}
This is why we don't like #ifdefs in .c files. The CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE
one really makes this unreadable.
This is really confusing because it says, if "CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE" is off,
don't bother with looking for "pv_cr_pin" on the command-line before
setting kvm_paravirt_cr_pinning_enabled=1. That doesn't make any sense
to me.
> +void kvm_setup_paravirt_cr_pinning(unsigned long cr0_pinned_bits,
> + unsigned long cr4_pinned_bits)
> +{
> + u64 mask;
> +
> + if (!kvm_paravirt_cr_pinning_enabled)
> + return;
> +
> + if (!kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_CR_PIN))
> + return;
So, if we compiled this whole mess in and got the new command-line
parameter and we got all the way here and the host doesn't support it,
we silently return?
Seems like it would at least deserve a pr_info().
> + rdmsrl(MSR_KVM_CR0_PIN_ALLOWED, mask);
> + wrmsrl(MSR_KVM_CR0_PINNED_HIGH, cr0_pinned_bits & mask);
> +
> + rdmsrl(MSR_KVM_CR4_PIN_ALLOWED, mask);
> + wrmsrl(MSR_KVM_CR4_PINNED_HIGH, cr4_pinned_bits & mask);
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_CPUIDLE_HALTPOLL
>
> static void kvm_disable_host_haltpoll(void *i)
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> index d9c678b37a9b..ed3bcc85d40d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,9 @@
> #include <asm/apic.h>
> #include <asm/bios_ebda.h>
> #include <asm/bugs.h>
> +#include <asm/kasan.h>
> +#include <asm/cmdline.h>
> +
> #include <asm/cpu.h>
> #include <asm/efi.h>
> #include <asm/gart.h>
> @@ -502,6 +505,11 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
> return;
> }
>
> + if (cmdline_find_option_bool(boot_command_line, "pv_cr_pin")) {
> + pr_info("Ignoring crashkernel since pv_cr_pin present in cmdline\n");
> + return;
> + }
Isn't it a bit mean to ignore crashkernel if the kernel has
CONFIG_PARAVIRT_CR_PIN=n?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
