On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 9:06 AM Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 8/16/24 13:25, Jim Mattson wrote: > > From Intel's documention [1], "CPUID.(EAX=07H,ECX=0):EDX[26] > > enumerates support for indirect branch restricted speculation (IBRS) > > and the indirect branch predictor barrier (IBPB)." Further, from [2], > > "Software that executed before the IBPB command cannot control the > > predicted targets of indirect branches (4) executed after the command > > on the same logical processor," where footnote 4 reads, "Note that > > indirect branches include near call indirect, near jump indirect and > > near return instructions. Because it includes near returns, it follows > > that **RSB entries created before an IBPB command cannot control the > > predicted targets of returns executed after the command on the same > > logical processor.**" [emphasis mine] > > > > On the other hand, AMD's IBPB "may not prevent return branch > > predictions from being specified by pre-IBPB branch targets" [3]. > > > > However, some AMD processors have an "enhanced IBPB" [terminology > > mine] which does clear the return address predictor. This feature is > > enumerated by CPUID.80000008:EDX.IBPB_RET[bit 30] [4]. > > > > Adjust the cross-vendor features enumerated by KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID > > accordingly. > > > > [1] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/software-security-guidance/technical-documentation/cpuid-enumeration-and-architectural-msrs.html > > [2] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/software-security-guidance/technical-documentation/speculative-execution-side-channel-mitigations.html#Footnotes > > [3] https://www.amd.com/en/resources/product-security/bulletin/amd-sb-1040.html > > [4] https://www.amd.com/content/dam/amd/en/documents/processor-tech-docs/programmer-references/24594.pdf > > > > Fixes: 0c54914d0c52 ("KVM: x86: use Intel speculation bugs and features as derived in generic x86 code") > > Suggested-by: Venkatesh Srinivas <venkateshs@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Jim Mattson <jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > v2: Use IBPB_RET to identify semantic equality (Venkatesh) > > > > arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c | 8 ++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c > > index 2617be544480..044bdc9e938b 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c > > @@ -690,7 +690,9 @@ void kvm_set_cpu_caps(void) > > kvm_cpu_cap_set(X86_FEATURE_TSC_ADJUST); > > kvm_cpu_cap_set(X86_FEATURE_ARCH_CAPABILITIES); > > > > - if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_IBPB) && boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_IBRS)) > > + if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_AMD_IBPB_RET) && > > + boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_AMD_IBPB) && > > + boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_AMD_IBRS)) > > kvm_cpu_cap_set(X86_FEATURE_SPEC_CTRL); > > if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_STIBP)) > > kvm_cpu_cap_set(X86_FEATURE_INTEL_STIBP); > > @@ -759,8 +761,10 @@ void kvm_set_cpu_caps(void) > > * arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c is kind enough to > > * record that in cpufeatures so use them. > > */ > > - if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_IBPB)) > > + if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_IBPB)) { > > kvm_cpu_cap_set(X86_FEATURE_AMD_IBPB); > > + kvm_cpu_cap_set(X86_FEATURE_AMD_IBPB_RET); > > Should IBPB_RET be conditionally set? I would think that you would only > want to set IBPB_RET if either IBPB_RET or SPEC_CTRL is set on the hypervisor. > > if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_AMD_IBPB_RET) || > boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SPEC_CTRL) > kvm_cpu_cap_set(X86_FEATURE_AMD_IBPB_RET); > > Right? Right. This clause is intended to set cross-vendor capabilities, so it should be: if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SPEC_CTRL)) kvm_cpu_cap_set(X86_FEATURE_AMD_IBPB_RET); Passing through AMD_IBPB_RET from the hardware should be done by adding the bit to the mask for CPUID_8000_0008_EBX. I'll send out a v3. Thanks! > Thanks, > Tom > > > + } > > if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_IBRS)) > > kvm_cpu_cap_set(X86_FEATURE_AMD_IBRS); > > if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_STIBP))
