Re: [PATCH v16 27/51] KVM: x86: Disable support for IBT and SHSTK if allow_smaller_maxphyaddr is true

Sean Christopherson
2025-09-23T15:04:46Z

On Tue, Sep 23, 2025, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> On 9/20/2025 6:32 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Make IBT and SHSTK virtualization mutually exclusive with "officially"
> > supporting setups with guest.MAXPHYADDR < host.MAXPHYADDR, i.e. if the
> > allow_smaller_maxphyaddr module param is set. Running a guest with a
> > smaller MAXPHYADDR requires intercepting #PF, and can also trigger
> > emulation of arbitrary instructions. Intercepting and reacting to #PFs
> > doesn't play nice with SHSTK, as KVM's MMU hasn't been taught to handle
> > Shadow Stack accesses, and emulating arbitrary instructions doesn't play
> > nice with IBT or SHSTK, as KVM's emulator doesn't handle the various side
> > effects, e.g. doesn't enforce end-branch markers or model Shadow Stack
> > updates.
> >
> > Note, hiding IBT and SHSTK based solely on allow_smaller_maxphyaddr is
> > overkill, as allow_smaller_maxphyaddr is only problematic if the guest is
> > actually configured to have a smaller MAXPHYADDR. However, KVM's ABI
> > doesn't provide a way to express that IBT and SHSTK may break if enabled
> > in conjunction with guest.MAXPHYADDR < host.MAXPHYADDR. I.e. the
> > alternative is to do nothing in KVM and instead update documentation and
> > hope KVM users are thorough readers.
>
> KVM_SET_CPUID* can return error to userspace. So KVM can return -EINVAL when
> userspace sets a smaller maxphyaddr with SHSTK/IBT enabled.

Generally speaking, I don't want to police userspace's vCPU model. For
allow_smaller_maxphyaddr in particular, I want to actively discourage its use.
The entire concept is inherently flawed, e.g. only works for a relative narrow
use case.

And IIRC, Sierra Forest and future Atom-based server CPUs will be straight up
incompatible with allow_smaller_maxphyaddr due to them setting accessed/dirty
bits before generating the EPT Violation, which is what killed allow_smaller_maxphyaddr
with NPT.

I.e. allow_smaller_maxphyaddr is doomed, and I want to help it die. If someone
really, really wants to enable CET on hosts with allow_smaller_maxphyaddr=true,
then they can send patches and we can sort out how to communicate the various
incompatibilities to userspace.