From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@intel.com>
Cc: 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,
pbonzini@redhat.com, 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 10:56:34 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z-wo0gUbWoJhQHBw@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <37b9903a-e8fc-4d57-a1ae-2bd2f26a9974@intel.com>
On Tue, Apr 01, 2025, Chang S. Bae wrote:
> 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.
FWIW, I wrote the changelog. I'm sure I derived many of the details from my
original mail, but I would rather not redirect future readers to lore to fully
understand the change.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231103224402.347278-1-seanjc@google.com
> I think it can be significantly shortened to focus on the key points, such
> as:
I strongly prefer the extremely verbose version. I wrote the code, and in all
honesty, the below short version doesn't help me understand the full scope of
the change (I have long since paged out the context). From a KVM perspective,
capturing why this flaw isn't problematic (yet!) is just as important as fixing
the issue.
> 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.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-01 17:56 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
2025-04-01 17:56 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
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=Z-wo0gUbWoJhQHBw@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=aruna.ramakrishna@oracle.com \
--cc=attofari@amazon.de \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=chang.seok.bae@intel.com \
--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=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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox