From: Patrick Bellasi <derkling@google.com>
To: stable@vger.kernel.org
Cc: patches@lists.linux.dev, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Patrick Bellasi <derkling@matbug.net>,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>,
Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@linux.dev>
Subject: [PATCH 6.6] x86/cpu/kvm: SRSO: Fix possible missing IBPB on VM-Exit
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 14:20:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250221142002.4136456-1-derkling@google.com> (raw)
commit 318e8c339c9a0891c389298bb328ed0762a9935e upstream.
In [1] the meaning of the synthetic IBPB flags has been redefined for a
better separation of concerns:
- ENTRY_IBPB -- issue IBPB on entry only
- IBPB_ON_VMEXIT -- issue IBPB on VM-Exit only
and the Retbleed mitigations have been updated to match this new
semantics.
Commit [2] was merged shortly before [1], and their interaction was not
handled properly. This resulted in IBPB not being triggered on VM-Exit
in all SRSO mitigation configs requesting an IBPB there.
Specifically, an IBPB on VM-Exit is triggered only when
X86_FEATURE_IBPB_ON_VMEXIT is set. However:
- X86_FEATURE_IBPB_ON_VMEXIT is not set for "spec_rstack_overflow=ibpb",
because before [1] having X86_FEATURE_ENTRY_IBPB was enough. Hence,
an IBPB is triggered on entry but the expected IBPB on VM-exit is
not.
- X86_FEATURE_IBPB_ON_VMEXIT is not set also when
"spec_rstack_overflow=ibpb-vmexit" if X86_FEATURE_ENTRY_IBPB is
already set.
That's because before [1] this was effectively redundant. Hence, e.g.
a "retbleed=ibpb spec_rstack_overflow=bpb-vmexit" config mistakenly
reports the machine still vulnerable to SRSO, despite an IBPB being
triggered both on entry and VM-Exit, because of the Retbleed selected
mitigation config.
- UNTRAIN_RET_VM won't still actually do anything unless
CONFIG_MITIGATION_IBPB_ENTRY is set.
For "spec_rstack_overflow=ibpb", enable IBPB on both entry and VM-Exit
and clear X86_FEATURE_RSB_VMEXIT which is made superfluous by
X86_FEATURE_IBPB_ON_VMEXIT. This effectively makes this mitigation
option similar to the one for 'retbleed=ibpb', thus re-order the code
for the RETBLEED_MITIGATION_IBPB option to be less confusing by having
all features enabling before the disabling of the not needed ones.
For "spec_rstack_overflow=ibpb-vmexit", guard this mitigation setting
with CONFIG_MITIGATION_IBPB_ENTRY to ensure UNTRAIN_RET_VM sequence is
effectively compiled in. Drop instead the CONFIG_MITIGATION_SRSO guard,
since none of the SRSO compile cruft is required in this configuration.
Also, check only that the required microcode is present to effectively
enabled the IBPB on VM-Exit.
Finally, update the KConfig description for CONFIG_MITIGATION_IBPB_ENTRY
to list also all SRSO config settings enabled by this guard.
Fixes: 864bcaa38ee4 ("x86/cpu/kvm: Provide UNTRAIN_RET_VM") [1]
Fixes: d893832d0e1e ("x86/srso: Add IBPB on VMEXIT") [2]
Reported-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Patrick Bellasi <derkling@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Borislav Petkov (AMD) <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
---
arch/x86/Kconfig | 3 ++-
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
index 05c82fd5d0f60..989d432b58345 100644
--- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
@@ -2514,7 +2514,8 @@ config CPU_IBPB_ENTRY
depends on CPU_SUP_AMD && X86_64
default y
help
- Compile the kernel with support for the retbleed=ibpb mitigation.
+ Compile the kernel with support for the retbleed=ibpb and
+ spec_rstack_overflow={ibpb,ibpb-vmexit} mitigations.
config CPU_IBRS_ENTRY
bool "Enable IBRS on kernel entry"
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c
index 7b5ba5b8592a2..7df458a6553eb 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c
@@ -1113,6 +1113,8 @@ static void __init retbleed_select_mitigation(void)
case RETBLEED_MITIGATION_IBPB:
setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_ENTRY_IBPB);
+ setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_IBPB_ON_VMEXIT);
+ mitigate_smt = true;
/*
* IBPB on entry already obviates the need for
@@ -1122,9 +1124,6 @@ static void __init retbleed_select_mitigation(void)
setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_UNRET);
setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_RETHUNK);
- setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_IBPB_ON_VMEXIT);
- mitigate_smt = true;
-
/*
* There is no need for RSB filling: entry_ibpb() ensures
* all predictions, including the RSB, are invalidated,
@@ -2626,6 +2625,7 @@ static void __init srso_select_mitigation(void)
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_IBPB_ENTRY)) {
if (has_microcode) {
setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_ENTRY_IBPB);
+ setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_IBPB_ON_VMEXIT);
srso_mitigation = SRSO_MITIGATION_IBPB;
/*
@@ -2635,6 +2635,13 @@ static void __init srso_select_mitigation(void)
*/
setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_UNRET);
setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_RETHUNK);
+
+ /*
+ * There is no need for RSB filling: entry_ibpb() ensures
+ * all predictions, including the RSB, are invalidated,
+ * regardless of IBPB implementation.
+ */
+ setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_RSB_VMEXIT);
}
} else {
pr_err("WARNING: kernel not compiled with CPU_IBPB_ENTRY.\n");
@@ -2643,8 +2650,8 @@ static void __init srso_select_mitigation(void)
break;
case SRSO_CMD_IBPB_ON_VMEXIT:
- if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_SRSO)) {
- if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ENTRY_IBPB) && has_microcode) {
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_IBPB_ENTRY)) {
+ if (has_microcode) {
setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_IBPB_ON_VMEXIT);
srso_mitigation = SRSO_MITIGATION_IBPB_ON_VMEXIT;
@@ -2656,9 +2663,9 @@ static void __init srso_select_mitigation(void)
setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_RSB_VMEXIT);
}
} else {
- pr_err("WARNING: kernel not compiled with CPU_SRSO.\n");
+ pr_err("WARNING: kernel not compiled with CPU_IBPB_ENTRY.\n");
goto pred_cmd;
- }
+ }
break;
default:
--
2.48.1.601.g30ceb7b040-goog
next reply other threads:[~2025-02-21 14:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-21 14:20 Patrick Bellasi [this message]
2025-02-22 14:59 ` [PATCH 6.6] x86/cpu/kvm: SRSO: Fix possible missing IBPB on VM-Exit Borislav Petkov
2025-02-22 15:53 ` Sasha Levin
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=20250221142002.4136456-1-derkling@google.com \
--to=derkling@google.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=derkling@matbug.net \
--cc=jackmanb@google.com \
--cc=patches@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yosry.ahmed@linux.dev \
/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