The Linux Kernel Mailing List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Mi, Dapeng" <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
To: "Chen, Zide" <zide.chen@intel.com>,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com>,
	Das Sandipan <Sandipan.Das@amd.com>,
	Shukla Manali <Manali.Shukla@amd.com>,
	Falcon Thomas <thomas.falcon@intel.com>,
	Xudong Hao <xudong.hao@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 7/9] KVM: x86/pmu: Restrict RDPMC passthrough to known CPUs
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2026 08:50:17 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b96073d4-6e6e-4188-bcee-5ff0feeebc96@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f8f9fc13-fafc-4828-ad5b-79e3677d9536@intel.com>


On 7/30/2026 11:05 PM, Chen, Zide wrote:
>
> On 7/29/2026 9:51 PM, Mi, Dapeng wrote:
>> On 7/28/2026 3:21 AM, Zide Chen wrote:
>>> RDPMC type encodings are vendor-defined and could theoretically be
>>> extended on future CPUs. An unknown RDPMC type could leak host
>>> PMU information to the guest through RDPMC passthrough.
>>>
>>> Rather than assuming future CPUs are safe, explicitly permit only
>>> reviewed CPU models and require RDPMC interception everywhere else.
>>> This ensures RDPMC passthrough is enabled only on CPUs whose RDPMC
>>> encodings are audited and supported by KVM.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
>>> Suggested-by: Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Zide Chen <zide.chen@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> v7: new patch.
>>> ---
>>>  arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
>>> index 51c6d00a485f..092809bd757d 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/pmu.c
>>> @@ -77,6 +77,21 @@ static const struct x86_cpu_id vmx_pebs_pdist_cpu[] = {
>>>  	{}
>>>  };
>>>  
>>> +/*
>>> + * CPUs whose RDPMC encodings have been audited for KVM RDPMC
>>> + * passthrough support.
>>> + */
>>> +static const struct x86_cpu_id kvm_rdpmc_known_cpus[] = {
>>> +	X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_ATOM_DARKMONT_X, NULL),
>>> +	X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_LUNARLAKE_M, NULL),
>>> +	X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_NOVALAKE, NULL),
>>> +	X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_NOVALAKE_L, NULL),
>>> +	X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_PANTHERLAKE_L, NULL),
>>> +	X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_PANTHERLAKE_R, NULL),
>>> +	X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_WILDCATLAKE_L, NULL),
>>> +	{}
>>> +};
>>> +
>>>  /* NOTE:
>>>   * - Each perf counter is defined as "struct kvm_pmc";
>>>   * - There are two types of perf counters: general purpose (gp) and fixed.
>>> @@ -807,6 +822,20 @@ bool kvm_need_perf_global_ctrl_intercept(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>  }
>>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_FOR_KVM_INTERNAL(kvm_need_perf_global_ctrl_intercept);
>>>  
>>> +static bool kvm_rdpmc_encoding_supported(void)
>>> +{
>>> +	/* KVM understands all RDPMC encodings prior to PMU v6. */
>>> +	if (kvm_host_pmu.version < 6)
>> I'm not sure if this works for AMD platforms. Jim said current AMD
>> platforms already have security holes and I believe the PMU version of AMD
>> platforms are less than 6.
>>
>> Need AMD guys to confirm. @Sandipan, @Manali.
>>
>>
>>> +		return true;
>>> +
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * Future PMU v6 implementations and future PMU versions require RDPMC
>>> +	 * interception until their RDPMC encodings are audited and supported
>>> +	 * by KVM.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	return x86_match_cpu(kvm_rdpmc_known_cpus);
>> x86_match_cpu() returns structure x86_cpu_id pointer or NULL instead of a
>> boolean variable. Better explicitly covert it to a boolean variable.
>>
>> return x86_match_cpu(kvm_rdpmc_known_cpus) != NULL;
> I think the implicit conversion is valid here. In C99, implicit
> conversion from a pointer to bool is well-defined, and is commonly used,
> e.g. if (x86_match_cpu(...)).
>
> bool is a typedef of _Bool.
>
> C99 6.3.1.2 "Boolean type":
>
> When any scalar value is converted to _Bool, the result is 0 if the
> value compares equal to 0; otherwise the result is 1.

Yeah, the implicit conversion is fine in theory. But the explicit
conversion seems more intuitionistic for me. Anyway, you can decide which
way you want. :)


>
>
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  bool kvm_need_rdpmc_intercept(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>  {
>>>  	struct kvm_pmu *pmu = vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu);
>>> @@ -818,6 +847,9 @@ bool kvm_need_rdpmc_intercept(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>  	if (enable_vmware_backdoor)
>>>  		return true;
>>>  
>>> +	if (!kvm_rdpmc_encoding_supported())
>>> +		return true;
>>> +
>>>  	return kvm_need_any_pmc_intercept(vcpu) ||
>>>  	       pmu->counter_bitmask[KVM_PMC_GP] != (BIT_ULL(kvm_host_pmu.bit_width_gp) - 1) ||
>>>  	       pmu->counter_bitmask[KVM_PMC_FIXED] != (BIT_ULL(kvm_host_pmu.bit_width_fixed) - 1);
>

  reply	other threads:[~2026-07-31  0:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-07-27 19:21 [PATCH v7 0/9] KVM: x86/pmu: Add hardware Topdown metrics support Zide Chen
2026-07-27 19:21 ` [PATCH v7 1/9] KVM: x86/pmu: Do not map fixed counters >= 3 to generic perf events Zide Chen
2026-07-27 19:21 ` [PATCH v7 2/9] KVM: x86/pmu: Support Intel fixed counter 3 on mediated vPMU Zide Chen
2026-07-27 19:21 ` [PATCH v7 3/9] KVM: x86/pmu: Rename and move vcpu_get_perf_capabilities() to pmu.h Zide Chen
2026-07-27 19:21 ` [PATCH v7 4/9] KVM: x86/pmu: Snapshot host IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES in kvm_host Zide Chen
2026-07-27 19:21 ` [PATCH v7 5/9] KVM: x86/pmu: Support PERF_METRICS MSR in mediated vPMU Zide Chen
2026-07-27 19:21 ` [PATCH v7 6/9] KVM: x86/pmu: Move RDPMC emulation into per-vendor callbacks Zide Chen
2026-07-27 19:21 ` [PATCH v7 7/9] KVM: x86/pmu: Restrict RDPMC passthrough to known CPUs Zide Chen
2026-07-30  2:51   ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-07-30 15:05     ` Chen, Zide
2026-07-31  0:50       ` Mi, Dapeng [this message]
2026-07-30 15:11     ` Jim Mattson
2026-07-31  1:03       ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-07-31  1:12   ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-07-27 19:21 ` [PATCH v7 8/9] KVM: x86/pmu: Emulate RDPMC on performance metrics Zide Chen
2026-07-27 19:21 ` [PATCH v7 9/9] KVM: selftests: Add PERF_METRICS and fixed counter 3 tests Zide Chen
2026-07-30  2:58   ` Mi, Dapeng

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=b96073d4-6e6e-4188-bcee-5ff0feeebc96@linux.intel.com \
    --to=dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=Manali.Shukla@amd.com \
    --cc=Sandipan.Das@amd.com \
    --cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=jmattson@google.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mizhang@google.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=thomas.falcon@intel.com \
    --cc=xudong.hao@intel.com \
    --cc=zide.chen@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