From: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>
To: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: acme@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
hpa@zytor.com, john.allen@amd.com, mingo@kernel.org,
mingo@redhat.com, minipli@grsecurity.net, mlevitsk@redhat.com,
namhyung@kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, prsampat@amd.com,
rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com, seanjc@google.com, shuah@kernel.org,
tglx@linutronix.de, weijiang.yang@intel.com, x86@kernel.org,
xin@zytor.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 15/22] KVM: x86: Don't emulate instructions guarded by CET
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 17:18:47 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8121026d-aede-4f78-a081-b81186b96e9b@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250909093953.202028-16-chao.gao@intel.com>
On 9/9/2025 5:39 PM, Chao Gao wrote:
> From: Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@intel.com>
>
> Don't emulate the branch instructions, e.g., CALL/RET/JMP etc., when CET
> is active in guest, return KVM_INTERNAL_ERROR_EMULATION to userspace to
> handle it.
>
> KVM doesn't emulate CPU behaviors to check CET protected stuffs while
> emulating guest instructions, instead it stops emulation on detecting
> the instructions in process are CET protected. By doing so, it can avoid
> generating bogus #CP in guest and preventing CET protected execution flow
> subversion from guest side.
>
> Suggested-by: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@intel.com>
> Tested-by: Mathias Krause <minipli@grsecurity.net>
> Tested-by: John Allen <john.allen@amd.com>
> Tested-by: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
> index 542d3664afa3..97a4d1e69583 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
> @@ -178,6 +178,8 @@
> #define IncSP ((u64)1 << 54) /* SP is incremented before ModRM calc */
> #define TwoMemOp ((u64)1 << 55) /* Instruction has two memory operand */
> #define IsBranch ((u64)1 << 56) /* Instruction is considered a branch. */
> +#define ShadowStack ((u64)1 << 57) /* Instruction protected by Shadow Stack. */
> +#define IndirBrnTrk ((u64)1 << 58) /* Instruction protected by IBT. */
>
> #define DstXacc (DstAccLo | SrcAccHi | SrcWrite)
>
> @@ -4068,9 +4070,11 @@ static const struct opcode group4[] = {
> static const struct opcode group5[] = {
> F(DstMem | SrcNone | Lock, em_inc),
> F(DstMem | SrcNone | Lock, em_dec),
> - I(SrcMem | NearBranch | IsBranch, em_call_near_abs),
> - I(SrcMemFAddr | ImplicitOps | IsBranch, em_call_far),
> - I(SrcMem | NearBranch | IsBranch, em_jmp_abs),
> + I(SrcMem | NearBranch | IsBranch | ShadowStack | IndirBrnTrk,
> + em_call_near_abs),
> + I(SrcMemFAddr | ImplicitOps | IsBranch | ShadowStack | IndirBrnTrk,
> + em_call_far),
> + I(SrcMem | NearBranch | IsBranch | IndirBrnTrk, em_jmp_abs),
> I(SrcMemFAddr | ImplicitOps | IsBranch, em_jmp_far),
> I(SrcMem | Stack | TwoMemOp, em_push), D(Undefined),
> };
> @@ -4332,11 +4336,11 @@ static const struct opcode opcode_table[256] = {
> /* 0xC8 - 0xCF */
> I(Stack | SrcImmU16 | Src2ImmByte | IsBranch, em_enter),
> I(Stack | IsBranch, em_leave),
> - I(ImplicitOps | SrcImmU16 | IsBranch, em_ret_far_imm),
> - I(ImplicitOps | IsBranch, em_ret_far),
> - D(ImplicitOps | IsBranch), DI(SrcImmByte | IsBranch, intn),
> + I(ImplicitOps | SrcImmU16 | IsBranch | ShadowStack, em_ret_far_imm),
> + I(ImplicitOps | IsBranch | ShadowStack, em_ret_far),
> + D(ImplicitOps | IsBranch), DI(SrcImmByte | IsBranch | ShadowStack, intn),
> D(ImplicitOps | No64 | IsBranch),
> - II(ImplicitOps | IsBranch, em_iret, iret),
> + II(ImplicitOps | IsBranch | ShadowStack, em_iret, iret),
> /* 0xD0 - 0xD7 */
> G(Src2One | ByteOp, group2), G(Src2One, group2),
> G(Src2CL | ByteOp, group2), G(Src2CL, group2),
> @@ -4352,7 +4356,7 @@ static const struct opcode opcode_table[256] = {
> I2bvIP(SrcImmUByte | DstAcc, em_in, in, check_perm_in),
> I2bvIP(SrcAcc | DstImmUByte, em_out, out, check_perm_out),
> /* 0xE8 - 0xEF */
> - I(SrcImm | NearBranch | IsBranch, em_call),
> + I(SrcImm | NearBranch | IsBranch | ShadowStack, em_call),
> D(SrcImm | ImplicitOps | NearBranch | IsBranch),
> I(SrcImmFAddr | No64 | IsBranch, em_jmp_far),
> D(SrcImmByte | ImplicitOps | NearBranch | IsBranch),
> @@ -4371,7 +4375,8 @@ static const struct opcode opcode_table[256] = {
> static const struct opcode twobyte_table[256] = {
> /* 0x00 - 0x0F */
> G(0, group6), GD(0, &group7), N, N,
> - N, I(ImplicitOps | EmulateOnUD | IsBranch, em_syscall),
> + N, I(ImplicitOps | EmulateOnUD | IsBranch | ShadowStack | IndirBrnTrk,
> + em_syscall),
> II(ImplicitOps | Priv, em_clts, clts), N,
> DI(ImplicitOps | Priv, invd), DI(ImplicitOps | Priv, wbinvd), N, N,
> N, D(ImplicitOps | ModRM | SrcMem | NoAccess), N, N,
> @@ -4402,8 +4407,9 @@ static const struct opcode twobyte_table[256] = {
> IIP(ImplicitOps, em_rdtsc, rdtsc, check_rdtsc),
> II(ImplicitOps | Priv, em_rdmsr, rdmsr),
> IIP(ImplicitOps, em_rdpmc, rdpmc, check_rdpmc),
> - I(ImplicitOps | EmulateOnUD | IsBranch, em_sysenter),
> - I(ImplicitOps | Priv | EmulateOnUD | IsBranch, em_sysexit),
> + I(ImplicitOps | EmulateOnUD | IsBranch | ShadowStack | IndirBrnTrk,
> + em_sysenter),
> + I(ImplicitOps | Priv | EmulateOnUD | IsBranch | ShadowStack, em_sysexit),
> N, N,
> N, N, N, N, N, N, N, N,
> /* 0x40 - 0x4F */
> @@ -4941,6 +4947,24 @@ int x86_decode_insn(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt, void *insn, int insn_len, int
> if (ctxt->d == 0)
> return EMULATION_FAILED;
>
> + if (ctxt->ops->get_cr(ctxt, 4) & X86_CR4_CET) {
> + u64 u_cet, s_cet;
> + bool stop_em;
> +
> + if (ctxt->ops->get_msr(ctxt, MSR_IA32_U_CET, &u_cet) ||
> + ctxt->ops->get_msr(ctxt, MSR_IA32_S_CET, &s_cet))
> + return EMULATION_FAILED;
> +
> + stop_em = ((u_cet & CET_SHSTK_EN) || (s_cet & CET_SHSTK_EN)) &&
> + (opcode.flags & ShadowStack);
> +
> + stop_em |= ((u_cet & CET_ENDBR_EN) || (s_cet & CET_ENDBR_EN)) &&
> + (opcode.flags & IndirBrnTrk);
Why don't check CPL here? Just for simplicity?
> + if (stop_em)
> + return EMULATION_FAILED;
> + }
> +
> ctxt->execute = opcode.u.execute;
>
> if (unlikely(emulation_type & EMULTYPE_TRAP_UD) &&
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-11 9:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-09 9:39 [PATCH v14 00/22] Enable CET Virtualization Chao Gao
2025-09-09 9:39 ` [PATCH v14 01/22] KVM: x86: Introduce KVM_{G,S}ET_ONE_REG uAPIs support Chao Gao
2025-09-10 9:03 ` Xiaoyao Li
2025-09-10 17:17 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-09-10 17:35 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-09-09 9:39 ` [PATCH v14 02/22] KVM: x86: Report XSS as to-be-saved if there are supported features Chao Gao
2025-09-11 6:52 ` Binbin Wu
2025-09-09 9:39 ` [PATCH v14 03/22] KVM: x86: Check XSS validity against guest CPUIDs Chao Gao
2025-09-10 9:22 ` Xiaoyao Li
2025-09-10 11:33 ` Chao Gao
2025-09-10 18:47 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-09-09 9:39 ` [PATCH v14 04/22] KVM: x86: Refresh CPUID on write to guest MSR_IA32_XSS Chao Gao
2025-09-10 9:23 ` Xiaoyao Li
2025-09-11 7:02 ` Binbin Wu
2025-09-09 9:39 ` [PATCH v14 05/22] KVM: x86: Initialize kvm_caps.supported_xss Chao Gao
2025-09-10 9:36 ` Xiaoyao Li
2025-09-09 9:39 ` [PATCH v14 06/22] KVM: x86: Load guest FPU state when access XSAVE-managed MSRs Chao Gao
2025-09-10 9:37 ` Xiaoyao Li
2025-09-10 11:18 ` Chao Gao
2025-09-10 13:46 ` Xiaoyao Li
2025-09-10 15:24 ` Chao Gao
2025-09-10 17:50 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-09-09 9:39 ` [PATCH v14 07/22] KVM: x86: Add fault checks for guest CR4.CET setting Chao Gao
2025-09-10 9:38 ` Xiaoyao Li
2025-09-09 9:39 ` [PATCH v14 08/22] KVM: x86: Report KVM supported CET MSRs as to-be-saved Chao Gao
2025-09-09 9:39 ` [PATCH v14 09/22] KVM: VMX: Introduce CET VMCS fields and control bits Chao Gao
2025-09-09 9:39 ` [PATCH v14 10/22] KVM: x86: Enable guest SSP read/write interface with new uAPIs Chao Gao
2025-09-09 9:39 ` [PATCH v14 11/22] KVM: VMX: Emulate read and write to CET MSRs Chao Gao
2025-09-11 8:05 ` Xiaoyao Li
2025-09-11 9:02 ` Chao Gao
2025-09-11 20:24 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-09-09 9:39 ` [PATCH v14 12/22] KVM: x86: Save and reload SSP to/from SMRAM Chao Gao
2025-09-09 9:39 ` [PATCH v14 13/22] KVM: VMX: Set up interception for CET MSRs Chao Gao
2025-09-09 9:39 ` [PATCH v14 14/22] KVM: VMX: Set host constant supervisor states to VMCS fields Chao Gao
2025-09-12 22:04 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-09-09 9:39 ` [PATCH v14 15/22] KVM: x86: Don't emulate instructions guarded by CET Chao Gao
2025-09-11 9:18 ` Xiaoyao Li [this message]
2025-09-11 10:42 ` Chao Gao
2025-09-12 6:23 ` Xiaoyao Li
2025-09-12 14:37 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-09-12 15:11 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-09-16 14:42 ` Chao Gao
2025-09-12 14:42 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-09-09 9:39 ` [PATCH v14 16/22] KVM: x86: Enable CET virtualization for VMX and advertise to userspace Chao Gao
2025-09-09 9:39 ` [PATCH v14 17/22] KVM: nVMX: Virtualize NO_HW_ERROR_CODE_CC for L1 event injection to L2 Chao Gao
2025-09-09 9:39 ` [PATCH v14 18/22] KVM: nVMX: Prepare for enabling CET support for nested guest Chao Gao
2025-09-09 9:39 ` [PATCH v14 19/22] KVM: nVMX: Add consistency checks for CR0.WP and CR4.CET Chao Gao
2025-09-09 9:39 ` [PATCH v14 20/22] KVM: nVMX: Add consistency checks for CET states Chao Gao
2025-09-09 9:39 ` [PATCH v14 21/22] KVM: nVMX: Advertise new VM-Entry/Exit control bits for CET state Chao Gao
2025-09-09 9:39 ` [PATCH v14 22/22] KVM: selftest: Add tests for KVM_{GET,SET}_ONE_REG Chao Gao
2025-09-10 18:06 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-09-09 9:52 ` [PATCH v14 00/22] Enable CET Virtualization Chao Gao
2025-09-10 18:29 ` Sean Christopherson
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=8121026d-aede-4f78-a081-b81186b96e9b@intel.com \
--to=xiaoyao.li@intel.com \
--cc=acme@redhat.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=chao.gao@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=john.allen@amd.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=minipli@grsecurity.net \
--cc=mlevitsk@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=prsampat@amd.com \
--cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=weijiang.yang@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xin@zytor.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®