All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@intel.com>
To: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>, <x86@kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	<tglx@linutronix.de>, <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	<seanjc@google.com>, <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: <peterz@infradead.org>, <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
	<weijiang.yang@intel.com>, <john.allen@amd.com>, <bp@alien8.de>,
	<xin3.li@intel.com>, Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Mitchell Levy <levymitchell0@gmail.com>,
	"Samuel Holland" <samuel.holland@sifive.com>,
	Li RongQing <lirongqing@baidu.com>,
	Adamos Ttofari <attofari@amazon.de>,
	Vignesh Balasubramanian <vigbalas@amd.com>,
	Aruna Ramakrishna <aruna.ramakrishna@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/8] x86/fpu/xstate: Always preserve non-user xfeatures/flags in __state_perm
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 10:17:24 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <37b9903a-e8fc-4d57-a1ae-2bd2f26a9974@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250318153316.1970147-2-chao.gao@intel.com>

On 3/18/2025 8:31 AM, Chao Gao wrote:
> 
> When granting userspace or a KVM guest access to an xfeature, preserve the
> entity's existing supervisor and software-defined permissions as tracked
> by __state_perm, i.e. use __state_perm to track *all* permissions even
> though all supported supervisor xfeatures are granted to all FPUs and
> FPU_GUEST_PERM_LOCKED disallows changing permissions.
> 
> Effectively clobbering supervisor permissions results in inconsistent
> behavior, as xstate_get_group_perm() will report supervisor features for
> process that do NOT request access to dynamic user xfeatures, whereas any
> and all supervisor features will be absent from the set of permissions for
> any process that is granted access to one or more dynamic xfeatures (which
> right now means AMX).
> 
> The inconsistency isn't problematic because fpu_xstate_prctl() already
> strips out everything except user xfeatures:
> 
>          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 &= 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);
> 
> and similarly KVM doesn't apply the __state_perm to supervisor states
> (kvm_get_filtered_xcr0() incorporates xstate_get_guest_group_perm()):
> 
>          case 0xd: {
>                  u64 permitted_xcr0 = kvm_get_filtered_xcr0();
>                  u64 permitted_xss = kvm_caps.supported_xss;
> 
> But if KVM in particular were to ever change, dropping supervisor
> permissions would result in subtle bugs in KVM's reporting of supported
> CPUID settings.  And the above behavior also means that having supervisor
> xfeatures in __state_perm is correctly handled by all users.
> 
> Dropping supervisor permissions also creates another landmine for KVM.  If
> more dynamic user xfeatures are ever added, requesting access to multiple
> xfeatures in separate ARCH_REQ_XCOMP_GUEST_PERM calls will result in the
> second invocation of __xstate_request_perm() computing the wrong ksize, as
> as the mask passed to xstate_calculate_size() would not contain *any*
> supervisor features.
> 
> Commit 781c64bfcb73 ("x86/fpu/xstate: Handle supervisor states in XSTATE
> permissions") fudged around the size issue for userspace FPUs, but for
> reasons unknown skipped guest FPUs.  Lack of a fix for KVM "works" only
> because KVM doesn't yet support virtualizing features that have supervisor
> xfeatures, i.e. as of today, KVM guest FPUs will never need the relevant
> xfeatures.
> 
> Simply extending the hack-a-fix for guests would temporarily solve the
> ksize issue, but wouldn't address the inconsistency issue and would leave
> another lurking pitfall for KVM.  KVM support for virtualizing CET will
> likely add CET_KERNEL as a guest-only xfeature, i.e. CET_KERNEL will not
> be set in xfeatures_mask_supervisor() and would again be dropped when
> granting access to dynamic xfeatures.
> 
> Note, the existing clobbering behavior is rather subtle.  The @permitted
> parameter to __xstate_request_perm() comes from:
> 
> 	permitted = xstate_get_group_perm(guest);
> 
> which is either fpu->guest_perm.__state_perm or fpu->perm.__state_perm,
> where __state_perm is initialized to:
> 
>          fpu->perm.__state_perm          = fpu_kernel_cfg.default_features;
> 
> and copied to the guest side of things:
> 
> 	/* Same defaults for guests */
> 	fpu->guest_perm = fpu->perm;
> 
> fpu_kernel_cfg.default_features contains everything except the dynamic
> xfeatures, i.e. everything except XFEATURE_MASK_XTILE_DATA:
> 
>          fpu_kernel_cfg.default_features = fpu_kernel_cfg.max_features;
>          fpu_kernel_cfg.default_features &= ~XFEATURE_MASK_USER_DYNAMIC;
> 
> When __xstate_request_perm() restricts the local "mask" variable to
> compute the user state size:
> 
> 	mask &= XFEATURE_MASK_USER_SUPPORTED;
> 	usize = xstate_calculate_size(mask, false);
> 
> it subtly overwrites the target __state_perm with "mask" containing only
> user xfeatures:
> 
> 	perm = guest ? &fpu->guest_perm : &fpu->perm;
> 	/* Pairs with the READ_ONCE() in xstate_get_group_perm() */
> 	WRITE_ONCE(perm->__state_perm, mask);

This changelog appears to be largely derived from Sean’s previous email. 
I think it can be significantly shortened to focus on the key
points, such as:

x86/fpu/xstate: Preserve non-user bits in permission handling

When granting userspace or a KVM guest access to an xfeature, the task
leader’s perm->__state_perm (host or guest) is overwritten, 
unintentionally discarding non-user bits. Additionally, supervisor state 
permissions are always granted.

The current behavior presents the following issues:

  *  Inconsistencies in permission handling – Supervisor permissions are
     universally granted, and the FPU_GUEST_PERM_LOCKED bit is explicitly
     set to prevent permission changes.

  *  Redundant permission setting – Since supervisor state permissions
     are always granted, the permitted mask already includes them, making
     it unnecessary to set them again.

Ensure that __xstate_request_perm() does not inadvertently drop
supervisor and software-defined permissions. Also, avoid redundantly
granting supervisor state permissions, and document this behavior in the
code comments.

Clarify the presence of non-user feature and flag bits in the field
description.


  reply	other threads:[~2025-04-01 17:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-03-18 15:31 [PATCH v4 0/8] Introduce CET supervisor state support Chao Gao
2025-03-18 15:31 ` [PATCH v4 1/8] x86/fpu/xstate: Always preserve non-user xfeatures/flags in __state_perm Chao Gao
2025-04-01 17:17   ` Chang S. Bae [this message]
2025-04-01 17:56     ` Sean Christopherson
2025-03-18 15:31 ` [PATCH v4 2/8] x86/fpu: Drop @perm from guest pseudo FPU container Chao Gao
2025-04-01 17:16   ` Chang S. Bae
2025-04-02  1:56     ` Chao Gao
2025-03-18 15:31 ` [PATCH v4 3/8] x86/fpu/xstate: Add CET supervisor xfeature support Chao Gao
2025-04-01 17:15   ` Chang S. Bae
2025-04-02  2:28     ` Chao Gao
2025-04-02 21:37     ` Dave Hansen
2025-04-03 13:26       ` Chao Gao
2025-04-03 14:04       ` Ingo Molnar
2025-03-18 15:31 ` [PATCH v4 4/8] x86/fpu/xstate: Differentiate default features for host and guest FPUs Chao Gao
2025-04-01 17:18   ` Chang S. Bae
2025-04-02  3:16     ` Chao Gao
2025-03-18 15:31 ` [PATCH v4 5/8] x86/fpu: Initialize guest FPU permissions from guest defaults Chao Gao
2025-03-18 15:31 ` [PATCH v4 6/8] x86/fpu: Initialize guest fpstate and FPU pseudo container " Chao Gao
2025-03-18 15:31 ` [PATCH v4 7/8] x86/fpu/xstate: Introduce "guest-only" supervisor xfeature set Chao Gao
2025-04-01 17:16   ` Chang S. Bae
2025-04-02  4:29     ` Chao Gao
2025-03-18 15:31 ` [PATCH v4 8/8] x86/fpu/xstate: Warn if guest-only supervisor states are detected in normal fpstate Chao Gao
2025-04-01 17:17   ` Chang S. Bae
2025-04-02 14:30     ` Chao Gao
2025-04-04  0:02       ` Chang S. Bae
2025-04-04  1:06         ` Dave Hansen
2025-04-01 17:20 ` [PATCH v4 0/8] Introduce CET supervisor state support Chang S. Bae
2025-04-02 21:12 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-04-02 21:35   ` Dave Hansen
2025-04-02 21:44     ` 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=37b9903a-e8fc-4d57-a1ae-2bd2f26a9974@intel.com \
    --to=chang.seok.bae@intel.com \
    --cc=aruna.ramakrishna@oracle.com \
    --cc=attofari@amazon.de \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=chao.gao@intel.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=john.allen@amd.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=levymitchell0@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lirongqing@baidu.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mlevitsk@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
    --cc=samuel.holland@sifive.com \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=vigbalas@amd.com \
    --cc=weijiang.yang@intel.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=xin3.li@intel.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 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.