On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 02:42:10AM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 05/10/2022 23:02, Suraj Jitindar Singh wrote:
== Solution ==
The WRMSR instruction can be used as a speculation barrier and a serialising
instruction. Use this on the VM exit path instead to ensure that a CALL
instruction (in this case the call to vmx_spec_ctrl_restore_host) has retired
before the prediction of a following unbalanced RET.
While both of these sentences are true statements, you've missed the
necessary safety property.
One CALL has to retire before *any* RET can execute.
There are several ways the frontend can end up eventually consuming the
bad RSB entry; they all stem from an execute (not prediction) of the
next RET instruction.
As to the change, ...
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
index c9b49a09e6b5..fdcd8e10c2ab 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
@@ -7049,8 +7049,13 @@ void noinstr vmx_spec_ctrl_restore_host(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx,
... out of context above this hunk is:
if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_MSR_SPEC_CTRL))
return;
meaning that there is a return instruction which is programmatically
reachable ahead of the WRMSR.
Whether it is speculatively reachable depends on whether the frontend
can see through the _static_cpu_has(), as well as
X86_FEATURE_MSR_SPEC_CTRL never becoming compile time evaluable.
In this case wouldn't _static_cpu_has() be runtime patched to a JMP
(<+8> below) or a NOP? RET (at <+13>) should not be reachable even
speculatively. What am I missing?
Dump of assembler code for function vmx_spec_ctrl_restore_host:
arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c:
u64 hostval = this_cpu_read(x86_spec_ctrl_current);
<+0>: mov %gs:0x7e022e60(%rip),%r8 # 0x1ad48 <x86_spec_ctrl_current>
./arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h:
asm_volatile_goto(
<+8>: jmp <vmx_spec_ctrl_restore_host+14>
<+10>: nopl (%rax)
<+13>: ret
arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c:
if (flags & VMX_RUN_SAVE_SPEC_CTRL)
<+14>: and $0x2,%esi
<+17>: je <vmx_spec_ctrl_restore_host+40>
[...]
