Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] x86/bugs: KVM: Add support for SRSO_MSR_FIX

Borislav Petkov
2024-12-16T17:32:02Z

On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 02:27:42PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> How much cost are we talking?

Likely 1-2%.

That's why I'm simply enabling it by default.

> IIUC, this magic bit reduces how much the CPU is allowed to speculate in order
> to mitigate potential VM=>host attacks, and that reducing speculation also reduces
> overall performance.
>
> If that's correct, then enabling the magic bit needs to be gated by an appropriate
> mitagation being enabled, not forced on automatically just because the CPU supports
> X86_FEATURE_SRSO_MSR_FIX.

Well, in the default case we have safe-RET - the default - but since it is
not needed anymore, it falls back to this thing which is needed when the
mitigation is enabled.

That's why it also is in the SRSO_CMD_IBPB_ON_VMEXIT case as it is part of the
spec_rstack_overflow=ibpb-vmexit mitigation option.

So it kinda already does that. When you disable the mitigation, this one won't
get enabled either.

> And depending on the cost, it might also make sense to set the bit on-demand, and
> then clean up when KVM disables virtualization. E.g. wait to set the bit until
> entry to a guest is imminent.

So the "when to set that bit" discussion kinda remained unfinished the last
time. Here's gist:

You:

| "It's not strictly KVM module load, it's when KVM enables virtualization. E.g.
| if userspace clears enable_virt_at_load, the MSR will be toggled every time the
| number of VMs goes from 0=>1 and 1=>0.
|
| But why do this in KVM? E.g. why not set-and-forget in init_amd_zen4()?"

I:

| "Because there's no need to impose an unnecessary - albeit small - perf impact
| on users who don't do virt.
|
| I'm currently gravitating towards the MSR toggling thing, i.e., only when the
| VMs number goes 0=>1 but I'm not sure. If udev rules *always* load kvm.ko then
| yes, the toggling thing sounds better. I.e., set it only when really needed."

So to answer your current question, it sounds like the user can control the
on-demand thing with enable_virt_at_load=0, right?

Or do you mean something else different?

Thx.

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.