RE: [patch 1/6] x86/fpu: Extend fpu_xstate_prctl() with guest permissions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 10:50 AM
> 
> KVM requires a clear separation of host user space and guest permissions
> for dynamic XSTATE components.
> 
> Add a guest permissions member to struct fpu and a separate set of prctl()
> arguments: ARCH_GET_XCOMP_GUEST_PERM and
> ARCH_REQ_XCOMP_GUEST_PERM.
> 
> The semantics are equivalent to the host user space permission control
> except for the following constraints:
> 
>   1) Permissions have to be requested before the first vCPU is created
> 
>   2) Permissions are frozen when the first vCPU is created to ensure
>      consistency. Any attempt to expand permissions via the prctl() after
>      that point is rejected.

A curiosity question. Do we allow the user to reduce permissions?

> @@ -477,6 +479,13 @@ struct fpu {
>  	struct fpu_state_perm		perm;
> 
>  	/*
> +	 * @guest_perm:
> +	 *
> +	 * Permission related information for guest pseudo FPUs
> +	 */

why calling it 'pseudo'? It's real FPU state managed by this series...

> @@ -1742,6 +1751,7 @@ long fpu_xstate_prctl(struct task_struct
>  	u64 __user *uptr = (u64 __user *)arg2;
>  	u64 permitted, supported;
>  	unsigned long idx = arg2;
> +	bool guest = false;
> 
>  	if (tsk != current)
>  		return -EPERM;
> @@ -1760,11 +1770,20 @@ long fpu_xstate_prctl(struct task_struct
>  		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);

Similarly as done for ARCH_REQ_XCOMP_GUEST_PERM:

+	case ARCH_GET_XCOMP_GUEST_PERM:
+		guest = true;
+		fallthrough;
+
	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 = xstate_get_group_perm(guest);
		permitted &= XFEATURE_MASK_USER_SUPPORTED;
		return put_user(permitted, uptr);

So the comment about 'lockless' is shared by both.

> +
> +	case ARCH_REQ_XCOMP_GUEST_PERM:
> +		guest = true;
> +		fallthrough;
> +
>  	case ARCH_REQ_XCOMP_PERM:
>  		if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64))
>  			return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> 
> -		return xstate_request_perm(idx);
> +		return xstate_request_perm(idx, guest);
> 
>  	default:
>  		return -EINVAL;

Thanks
Kevin




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux