From: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>
To: x86@kernel.org, David Kaplan <david.kaplan@amd.com>,
Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@suse.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@intel.com>,
Tao Zhang <tao1.zhang@intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH v4 04/11] x86/bhi: Make clear_bhb_loop() effective on newer CPUs
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 22:18:34 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251119-vmscape-bhb-v4-4-1adad4e69ddc@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251119-vmscape-bhb-v4-0-1adad4e69ddc@linux.intel.com>
As a mitigation for BHI, clear_bhb_loop() executes branches that overwrites
the Branch History Buffer (BHB). On Alder Lake and newer parts this
sequence is not sufficient because it doesn't clear enough entries. This
was not an issue because these CPUs have a hardware control (BHI_DIS_S)
that mitigates BHI in kernel.
BHI variant of VMSCAPE requires isolating branch history between guests and
userspace. Note that there is no equivalent hardware control for userspace.
To effectively isolate branch history on newer CPUs, clear_bhb_loop()
should execute sufficient number of branches to clear a larger BHB.
Dynamically set the loop count of clear_bhb_loop() such that it is
effective on newer CPUs too. Use the hardware control enumeration
X86_FEATURE_BHI_CTRL to select the appropriate loop count.
Suggested-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>
---
arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S | 13 ++++++++-----
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
index a2891af416c874349c065160708752c41bc6ba36..6cddd7d6dc927704357d97346fcbb34559608888 100644
--- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
+++ b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
@@ -1563,17 +1563,20 @@ SYM_CODE_END(rewind_stack_and_make_dead)
.endm
/*
- * This should be used on parts prior to Alder Lake. Newer parts should use the
- * BHI_DIS_S hardware control instead. If a pre-Alder Lake part is being
- * virtualized on newer hardware the VMM should protect against BHI attacks by
- * setting BHI_DIS_S for the guests.
+ * For protecting the kernel against BHI, this should be used on parts prior to
+ * Alder Lake. Although the sequence works on newer parts, BHI_DIS_S hardware
+ * control has lower overhead, and should be used instead. If a pre-Alder Lake
+ * part is being virtualized on newer hardware the VMM should protect against
+ * BHI attacks by setting BHI_DIS_S for the guests.
*/
SYM_FUNC_START(clear_bhb_loop)
ANNOTATE_NOENDBR
push %rbp
mov %rsp, %rbp
- CLEAR_BHB_LOOP_SEQ 5, 5
+ /* loop count differs based on CPU-gen, see Intel's BHI guidance */
+ ALTERNATIVE __stringify(CLEAR_BHB_LOOP_SEQ 5, 5), \
+ __stringify(CLEAR_BHB_LOOP_SEQ 12, 7), X86_FEATURE_BHI_CTRL
pop %rbp
RET
--
2.34.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-20 6:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-20 6:17 [PATCH v4 00/11] VMSCAPE optimization for BHI variant Pawan Gupta
2025-11-20 6:17 ` [PATCH v4 01/11] x86/bhi: x86/vmscape: Move LFENCE out of clear_bhb_loop() Pawan Gupta
2025-11-20 16:15 ` Nikolay Borisov
2025-11-20 16:56 ` Pawan Gupta
2025-11-20 16:58 ` Nikolay Borisov
2025-11-20 6:18 ` [PATCH v4 02/11] x86/bhi: Move the BHB sequence to a macro for reuse Pawan Gupta
2025-11-20 16:28 ` Nikolay Borisov
2025-11-20 16:57 ` Pawan Gupta
2025-11-25 0:21 ` Pawan Gupta
2025-11-20 6:18 ` [PATCH v4 03/11] x86/bhi: Make the depth of BHB-clearing configurable Pawan Gupta
2025-11-20 17:02 ` Nikolay Borisov
2025-11-20 6:18 ` Pawan Gupta [this message]
2025-11-21 12:33 ` [PATCH v4 04/11] x86/bhi: Make clear_bhb_loop() effective on newer CPUs Nikolay Borisov
2025-11-21 16:40 ` Dave Hansen
2025-11-21 16:45 ` Nikolay Borisov
2025-11-21 16:50 ` Dave Hansen
2025-11-21 18:16 ` Pawan Gupta
2025-11-21 18:42 ` Dave Hansen
2025-11-21 21:26 ` Pawan Gupta
2025-11-21 21:36 ` Dave Hansen
2025-11-24 19:21 ` Pawan Gupta
2025-11-22 11:05 ` david laight
2025-11-24 19:31 ` Pawan Gupta
2025-11-25 11:34 ` david laight
2025-12-04 1:40 ` Pawan Gupta
2025-12-04 9:15 ` david laight
2025-12-04 21:56 ` Pawan Gupta
2025-12-05 9:21 ` david laight
2025-11-26 19:23 ` Pawan Gupta
2026-03-06 21:00 ` Jim Mattson
2026-03-06 22:32 ` Pawan Gupta
2026-03-06 22:57 ` Jim Mattson
2026-03-06 23:29 ` Pawan Gupta
2026-03-07 0:35 ` Jim Mattson
2026-03-07 1:00 ` Pawan Gupta
2026-03-07 1:10 ` Jim Mattson
2026-03-07 2:41 ` Pawan Gupta
2026-03-07 5:05 ` Jim Mattson
2026-03-09 22:29 ` Pawan Gupta
2026-03-09 23:05 ` Jim Mattson
2026-03-10 0:00 ` Pawan Gupta
2026-03-10 0:08 ` Jim Mattson
2026-03-10 0:52 ` Pawan Gupta
2025-11-20 6:18 ` [PATCH v4 05/11] x86/vmscape: Rename x86_ibpb_exit_to_user to x86_predictor_flush_exit_to_user Pawan Gupta
2025-11-20 6:19 ` [PATCH v4 06/11] x86/vmscape: Move mitigation selection to a switch() Pawan Gupta
2025-11-21 14:27 ` Nikolay Borisov
2025-11-24 23:09 ` Pawan Gupta
2025-11-25 10:19 ` Nikolay Borisov
2025-11-25 17:45 ` Pawan Gupta
2025-11-20 6:19 ` [PATCH v4 07/11] x86/vmscape: Use write_ibpb() instead of indirect_branch_prediction_barrier() Pawan Gupta
2025-11-21 12:59 ` Nikolay Borisov
2025-11-20 6:19 ` [PATCH v4 08/11] x86/vmscape: Use static_call() for predictor flush Pawan Gupta
2025-11-20 6:19 ` [PATCH v4 09/11] x86/vmscape: Deploy BHB clearing mitigation Pawan Gupta
2025-11-21 14:18 ` Nikolay Borisov
2025-11-21 18:29 ` Pawan Gupta
2025-11-21 14:23 ` Nikolay Borisov
2025-11-21 18:41 ` Pawan Gupta
2025-11-21 18:53 ` Nikolay Borisov
2025-11-21 21:29 ` Pawan Gupta
2025-11-20 6:20 ` [PATCH v4 10/11] x86/vmscape: Override conflicting attack-vector controls with =force Pawan Gupta
2025-11-21 18:04 ` Nikolay Borisov
2025-11-20 6:20 ` [PATCH v4 11/11] x86/vmscape: Add cmdline vmscape=on to override attack vector controls Pawan Gupta
2025-11-25 11:41 ` Nikolay Borisov
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=20251119-vmscape-bhb-v4-4-1adad4e69ddc@linux.intel.com \
--to=pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com \
--cc=asit.k.mallick@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=david.kaplan@amd.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nik.borisov@suse.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=tao1.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.