* [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/cpufeatures: Define X86_FEATURE_AMD_IBPB_RET @ 2024-08-16 18:25 Jim Mattson 2024-08-16 18:25 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: x86: AMD's IBPB is not equivalent to Intel's IBPB Jim Mattson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Jim Mattson @ 2024-08-16 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, Dave Hansen, x86, H. Peter Anvin, Sean Christopherson, Paolo Bonzini, Pawan Gupta, Daniel Sneddon, Kai Huang, Sandipan Das, linux-kernel, kvm Cc: Jim Mattson, Venkatesh Srinivas AMD's initial implementation of IBPB did not clear the return address predictor. Beginning with Zen4, AMD's IBPB *does* clear the return address predictor. This behavior is enumerated by CPUID.80000008H:EBX.IBPB_RET[bit 30]. Define X86_FEATURE_AMD_IBPB_RET for use in KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID, when determining cross-vendor capabilities. Suggested-by: Venkatesh Srinivas <venkateshs@chromium.org> Signed-off-by: Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com> --- arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h index dd4682857c12..e5bcb428dcf9 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h @@ -348,6 +348,7 @@ #define X86_FEATURE_CPPC (13*32+27) /* "cppc" Collaborative Processor Performance Control */ #define X86_FEATURE_AMD_PSFD (13*32+28) /* Predictive Store Forwarding Disable */ #define X86_FEATURE_BTC_NO (13*32+29) /* Not vulnerable to Branch Type Confusion */ +#define X86_FEATURE_AMD_IBPB_RET (13*32+30) /* IBPB clears return address predictor */ #define X86_FEATURE_BRS (13*32+31) /* "brs" Branch Sampling available */ /* Thermal and Power Management Leaf, CPUID level 0x00000006 (EAX), word 14 */ -- 2.46.0.184.g6999bdac58-goog ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: x86: AMD's IBPB is not equivalent to Intel's IBPB 2024-08-16 18:25 [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/cpufeatures: Define X86_FEATURE_AMD_IBPB_RET Jim Mattson @ 2024-08-16 18:25 ` Jim Mattson 2024-08-22 19:17 ` Sean Christopherson 2024-08-23 16:06 ` Tom Lendacky 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Jim Mattson @ 2024-08-16 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, Dave Hansen, x86, H. Peter Anvin, Sean Christopherson, Paolo Bonzini, Pawan Gupta, Daniel Sneddon, Kai Huang, Sandipan Das, linux-kernel, kvm Cc: Jim Mattson, Venkatesh Srinivas 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@chromium.org> Signed-off-by: Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com> --- 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); + } if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_IBRS)) kvm_cpu_cap_set(X86_FEATURE_AMD_IBRS); if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_STIBP)) -- 2.46.0.184.g6999bdac58-goog ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: x86: AMD's IBPB is not equivalent to Intel's IBPB 2024-08-16 18:25 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: x86: AMD's IBPB is not equivalent to Intel's IBPB Jim Mattson @ 2024-08-22 19:17 ` Sean Christopherson 2024-08-23 16:47 ` Venkatesh Srinivas 2024-08-23 16:06 ` Tom Lendacky 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Sean Christopherson @ 2024-08-22 19:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jim Mattson Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, Dave Hansen, x86, H. Peter Anvin, Paolo Bonzini, Pawan Gupta, Daniel Sneddon, Kai Huang, Sandipan Das, linux-kernel, kvm, Venkatesh Srinivas On Fri, Aug 16, 2024, 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@chromium.org> > Signed-off-by: Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com> Venkatesh, can I grab a review from you on this? You know this way better than I do, and I honestly don't feel like reading mitigation disclosures right now :-) > --- > 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); > + } > if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_IBRS)) > kvm_cpu_cap_set(X86_FEATURE_AMD_IBRS); > if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_STIBP)) > -- > 2.46.0.184.g6999bdac58-goog > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: x86: AMD's IBPB is not equivalent to Intel's IBPB 2024-08-22 19:17 ` Sean Christopherson @ 2024-08-23 16:47 ` Venkatesh Srinivas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Venkatesh Srinivas @ 2024-08-23 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sean Christopherson, Jim Mattson Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, Dave Hansen, x86, H. Peter Anvin, Paolo Bonzini, Pawan Gupta, Daniel Sneddon, Kai Huang, Sandipan Das, linux-kernel, kvm On 8/22/24 19:17, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024, 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@chromium.org> >> Signed-off-by: Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com> > > Venkatesh, can I grab a review from you on this? You know this way better than > I do, and I honestly don't feel like reading mitigation disclosures right now :-) Got lost in my mailbox! Reviewed-by: Venkatesh Srinivas <venkateshs@chromium.org> > >> --- >> 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); >> + } >> if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_IBRS)) >> kvm_cpu_cap_set(X86_FEATURE_AMD_IBRS); >> if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_STIBP)) >> -- >> 2.46.0.184.g6999bdac58-goog >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: x86: AMD's IBPB is not equivalent to Intel's IBPB 2024-08-16 18:25 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: x86: AMD's IBPB is not equivalent to Intel's IBPB Jim Mattson 2024-08-22 19:17 ` Sean Christopherson @ 2024-08-23 16:06 ` Tom Lendacky 2024-08-23 17:33 ` Jim Mattson 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Tom Lendacky @ 2024-08-23 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jim Mattson, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, Dave Hansen, x86, H. Peter Anvin, Sean Christopherson, Paolo Bonzini, Pawan Gupta, Daniel Sneddon, Kai Huang, Sandipan Das, linux-kernel, kvm Cc: Venkatesh Srinivas 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@chromium.org> > Signed-off-by: Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com> > --- > 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? Thanks, Tom > + } > if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_IBRS)) > kvm_cpu_cap_set(X86_FEATURE_AMD_IBRS); > if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_STIBP)) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: x86: AMD's IBPB is not equivalent to Intel's IBPB 2024-08-23 16:06 ` Tom Lendacky @ 2024-08-23 17:33 ` Jim Mattson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Jim Mattson @ 2024-08-23 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Lendacky Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, Dave Hansen, x86, H. Peter Anvin, Sean Christopherson, Paolo Bonzini, Pawan Gupta, Daniel Sneddon, Kai Huang, Sandipan Das, linux-kernel, kvm, Venkatesh Srinivas On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 9:06 AM Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> 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@chromium.org> > > Signed-off-by: Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com> > > --- > > 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)) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-08-23 17:33 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2024-08-16 18:25 [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/cpufeatures: Define X86_FEATURE_AMD_IBPB_RET Jim Mattson 2024-08-16 18:25 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: x86: AMD's IBPB is not equivalent to Intel's IBPB Jim Mattson 2024-08-22 19:17 ` Sean Christopherson 2024-08-23 16:47 ` Venkatesh Srinivas 2024-08-23 16:06 ` Tom Lendacky 2024-08-23 17:33 ` Jim Mattson
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox