From: "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@intel.com>
To: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>, <x86@kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
<tglx@linutronix.de>, <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
<seanjc@google.com>, <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: <peterz@infradead.org>, <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
<weijiang.yang@intel.com>, <john.allen@amd.com>, <bp@alien8.de>,
<xin3.li@intel.com>, Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@sifive.com>,
"Mitchell Levy" <levymitchell0@gmail.com>,
Vignesh Balasubramanian <vigbalas@amd.com>,
Aruna Ramakrishna <aruna.ramakrishna@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/7] x86/fpu/xstate: Always preserve non-user xfeatures/flags in __state_perm
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 13:50:59 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0f260941-0bbe-4dad-b622-a1a8ecc0a8e5@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250410072605.2358393-2-chao.gao@intel.com>
On 4/10/2025 12:24 AM, Chao Gao wrote:
> From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
>
> When granting userspace or a KVM guest access to an xfeature, preserve the
> entity's existing supervisor and software-defined permissions as tracked
> by __state_perm, i.e. use __state_perm to track *all* permissions even
> though all supported supervisor xfeatures are granted to all FPUs and
> FPU_GUEST_PERM_LOCKED disallows changing permissions.
>
> Effectively clobbering supervisor permissions results in inconsistent
> behavior, as xstate_get_group_perm() will report supervisor features for
> process that do NOT request access to dynamic user xfeatures, whereas any
> and all supervisor features will be absent from the set of permissions for
> any process that is granted access to one or more dynamic xfeatures (which
> right now means AMX).
>
> The inconsistency isn't problematic because fpu_xstate_prctl() already
> strips out everything except user xfeatures:
>
> case ARCH_GET_XCOMP_PERM:
> /*
> * Lockless snapshot as it can also change right after the
> * dropping the lock.
> */
> permitted = xstate_get_host_group_perm();
> permitted &= XFEATURE_MASK_USER_SUPPORTED;
> return put_user(permitted, uptr);
>
> case ARCH_GET_XCOMP_GUEST_PERM:
> permitted = xstate_get_guest_group_perm();
> permitted &= XFEATURE_MASK_USER_SUPPORTED;
> return put_user(permitted, uptr);
>
> and similarly KVM doesn't apply the __state_perm to supervisor states
> (kvm_get_filtered_xcr0() incorporates xstate_get_guest_group_perm()):
>
> case 0xd: {
> u64 permitted_xcr0 = kvm_get_filtered_xcr0();
> u64 permitted_xss = kvm_caps.supported_xss;
>
> But if KVM in particular were to ever change, dropping supervisor
> permissions would result in subtle bugs in KVM's reporting of supported
> CPUID settings. And the above behavior also means that having supervisor
> xfeatures in __state_perm is correctly handled by all users.
>
> Dropping supervisor permissions also creates another landmine for KVM. If
> more dynamic user xfeatures are ever added, requesting access to multiple
> xfeatures in separate ARCH_REQ_XCOMP_GUEST_PERM calls will result in the
> second invocation of __xstate_request_perm() computing the wrong ksize, as
> as the mask passed to xstate_calculate_size() would not contain *any*
> supervisor features.
>
> Commit 781c64bfcb73 ("x86/fpu/xstate: Handle supervisor states in XSTATE
> permissions") fudged around the size issue for userspace FPUs, but for
> reasons unknown skipped guest FPUs. Lack of a fix for KVM "works" only
> because KVM doesn't yet support virtualizing features that have supervisor
> xfeatures, i.e. as of today, KVM guest FPUs will never need the relevant
> xfeatures.
>
> Simply extending the hack-a-fix for guests would temporarily solve the
> ksize issue, but wouldn't address the inconsistency issue and would leave
> another lurking pitfall for KVM. KVM support for virtualizing CET will
> likely add CET_KERNEL as a guest-only xfeature, i.e. CET_KERNEL will not
> be set in xfeatures_mask_supervisor() and would again be dropped when
> granting access to dynamic xfeatures.
>
> Note, the existing clobbering behavior is rather subtle. The @permitted
> parameter to __xstate_request_perm() comes from:
>
> permitted = xstate_get_group_perm(guest);
>
> which is either fpu->guest_perm.__state_perm or fpu->perm.__state_perm,
> where __state_perm is initialized to:
>
> fpu->perm.__state_perm = fpu_kernel_cfg.default_features;
>
> and copied to the guest side of things:
>
> /* Same defaults for guests */
> fpu->guest_perm = fpu->perm;
>
> fpu_kernel_cfg.default_features contains everything except the dynamic
> xfeatures, i.e. everything except XFEATURE_MASK_XTILE_DATA:
>
> fpu_kernel_cfg.default_features = fpu_kernel_cfg.max_features;
> fpu_kernel_cfg.default_features &= ~XFEATURE_MASK_USER_DYNAMIC;
>
> When __xstate_request_perm() restricts the local "mask" variable to
> compute the user state size:
>
> mask &= XFEATURE_MASK_USER_SUPPORTED;
> usize = xstate_calculate_size(mask, false);
>
> it subtly overwrites the target __state_perm with "mask" containing only
> user xfeatures:
>
> perm = guest ? &fpu->guest_perm : &fpu->perm;
> /* Pairs with the READ_ONCE() in xstate_get_group_perm() */
> WRITE_ONCE(perm->__state_perm, mask);
>
> Cc: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
> Cc: Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@intel.com>
> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
> Cc: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
> Cc: John Allen <john.allen@amd.com>
> Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZTqgzZl-reO1m01I@google.com
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
> Acked-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
The code change looks reasonable to me.
While the changelog is a bit TL;DR, I understand and respect the intent
to keep the full context, especially given the KVM maintainer's
preference. So, feel free to add my tag:
Reviewed-by: Chang S. Bae <chang.seok.bae@intel.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-18 20:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-10 7:24 [PATCH v5 0/7] Introduce CET supervisor state support Chao Gao
2025-04-10 7:24 ` [PATCH v5 1/7] x86/fpu/xstate: Always preserve non-user xfeatures/flags in __state_perm Chao Gao
2025-04-18 20:50 ` Chang S. Bae [this message]
2025-04-10 7:24 ` [PATCH v5 2/7] x86/fpu: Drop @perm from guest pseudo FPU container Chao Gao
2025-04-18 20:51 ` Chang S. Bae
2025-04-18 20:54 ` Chang S. Bae
2025-04-19 1:01 ` Chao Gao
2025-04-10 7:24 ` [PATCH v5 3/7] x86/fpu/xstate: Differentiate default features for host and guest FPUs Chao Gao
2025-04-24 22:52 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-04-25 8:24 ` Chao Gao
2025-04-25 16:09 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-04-25 23:48 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-04-28 3:26 ` Chao Gao
2025-04-28 7:44 ` Xin Li
2025-04-28 14:28 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-04-28 6:31 ` Xin Li
2025-04-28 15:42 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-04-29 1:11 ` Chang S. Bae
2025-04-29 2:50 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-04-29 3:22 ` Chang S. Bae
2025-04-29 3:36 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-04-30 3:27 ` Chao Gao
2025-04-30 15:01 ` Chang S. Bae
2025-04-30 15:33 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-04-30 16:20 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-04-30 18:26 ` Chang S. Bae
2025-04-28 5:51 ` Xin Li
2025-04-28 6:12 ` Xin Li
2025-05-01 14:24 ` Chang S. Bae
2025-05-06 3:29 ` Chao Gao
2025-04-10 7:24 ` [PATCH v5 4/7] x86/fpu: Initialize guest FPU permissions from guest defaults Chao Gao
2025-04-30 15:45 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-04-10 7:24 ` [PATCH v5 5/7] x86/fpu: Initialize guest fpstate and FPU pseudo container " Chao Gao
2025-04-30 18:29 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-05-01 14:24 ` Chang S. Bae
2025-05-06 3:33 ` Chao Gao
2025-04-10 7:24 ` [PATCH v5 6/7] x86/fpu/xstate: Introduce "guest-only" supervisor xfeature set Chao Gao
2025-04-24 22:58 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-04-10 7:24 ` [PATCH v5 7/7] x86/fpu/xstate: Add CET supervisor xfeature support as a guest-only feature Chao Gao
2025-04-24 23:28 ` [PATCH v5 0/7] Introduce CET supervisor state support Edgecombe, Rick P
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0f260941-0bbe-4dad-b622-a1a8ecc0a8e5@intel.com \
--to=chang.seok.bae@intel.com \
--cc=aruna.ramakrishna@oracle.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=chao.gao@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=john.allen@amd.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=levymitchell0@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mlevitsk@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
--cc=samuel.holland@sifive.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vigbalas@amd.com \
--cc=weijiang.yang@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xin3.li@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®