From: Daniel Sneddon <daniel.sneddon@linux.intel.com>
To: Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
Suraj Jitindar Singh <surajjs@amazon.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, sjitindarsingh@gmail.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
mingo@redhat.com, bp@suse.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
seanjc@google.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
jpoimboe@kernel.org, pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com,
benh@kernel.crashing.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/speculation: Mitigate eIBRS PBRSB predictions with WRMSR
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2022 17:26:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <684c8ef6-bf69-e31e-fb3e-d3beca52fd15@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALMp9eThzv+5UBPtm77nvD_b48hHD7O1QLni7a+x9zAPicFk4Q@mail.gmail.com>
On 10/5/22 16:46, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 3:03 PM Suraj Jitindar Singh <surajjs@amazon.com> wrote:
>>
>> tl;dr: The existing mitigation for eIBRS PBRSB predictions uses an INT3 to
>> ensure a call instruction retires before a following unbalanced RET. Replace
>> this with a WRMSR serialising instruction which has a lower performance
>> penalty.
>>
>> == Background ==
>>
>> eIBRS (enhanced indirect branch restricted speculation) is used to prevent
>> predictor addresses from one privilege domain from being used for prediction
>> in a higher privilege domain.
>>
>> == Problem ==
>>
>> On processors with eIBRS protections there can be a case where upon VM exit
>> a guest address may be used as an RSB prediction for an unbalanced RET if a
>> CALL instruction hasn't yet been retired. This is termed PBRSB (Post-Barrier
>> Return Stack Buffer).
>>
>> A mitigation for this was introduced in:
>> (2b1299322016731d56807aa49254a5ea3080b6b3 x86/speculation: Add RSB VM Exit protections)
>>
>> This mitigation [1] has a ~1% performance impact on VM exit compared to without
>> it [2].
>>
>> == Solution ==
>>
>> The WRMSR instruction can be used as a speculation barrier and a serialising
>> instruction. Use this on the VM exit path instead to ensure that a CALL
>> instruction (in this case the call to vmx_spec_ctrl_restore_host) has retired
>> before the prediction of a following unbalanced RET.
>>
>> This mitigation [3] has a negligible performance impact.
>>
>> == Testing ==
>>
>> Run the outl_to_kernel kvm-unit-tests test 200 times per configuration which
>> counts the cycles for an exit to kernel mode.
>>
>> [1] With existing mitigation:
>> Average: 2026 cycles
>> [2] With no mitigation:
>> Average: 2008 cycles
>> [3] With proposed mitigation:
>> Average: 2008 cycles
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Suraj Jitindar Singh <surajjs@amazon.com>
>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>> ---
>> arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h | 7 +++----
>> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmenter.S | 3 +--
>> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 5 +++++
>> 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h
>> index c936ce9f0c47..e5723e024b47 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h
>> @@ -159,10 +159,9 @@
>> * A simpler FILL_RETURN_BUFFER macro. Don't make people use the CPP
>> * monstrosity above, manually.
>> */
>> -.macro FILL_RETURN_BUFFER reg:req nr:req ftr:req ftr2=ALT_NOT(X86_FEATURE_ALWAYS)
>> - ALTERNATIVE_2 "jmp .Lskip_rsb_\@", \
>> - __stringify(__FILL_RETURN_BUFFER(\reg,\nr)), \ftr, \
>> - __stringify(__FILL_ONE_RETURN), \ftr2
>> +.macro FILL_RETURN_BUFFER reg:req nr:req ftr:req
>> + ALTERNATIVE "jmp .Lskip_rsb_\@", \
>> + __stringify(__FILL_RETURN_BUFFER(\reg,\nr)), \ftr
>>
>> .Lskip_rsb_\@:
>> .endm
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmenter.S b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmenter.S
>> index 6de96b943804..eb82797bd7bf 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmenter.S
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmenter.S
>> @@ -231,8 +231,7 @@ SYM_INNER_LABEL(vmx_vmexit, SYM_L_GLOBAL)
>> * single call to retire, before the first unbalanced RET.
>> */
>>
>> - FILL_RETURN_BUFFER %_ASM_CX, RSB_CLEAR_LOOPS, X86_FEATURE_RSB_VMEXIT,\
>> - X86_FEATURE_RSB_VMEXIT_LITE
>> + FILL_RETURN_BUFFER %_ASM_CX, RSB_CLEAR_LOOPS, X86_FEATURE_RSB_VMEXIT
>>
>>
>> pop %_ASM_ARG2 /* @flags */
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
>> index c9b49a09e6b5..fdcd8e10c2ab 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
>> @@ -7049,8 +7049,13 @@ void noinstr vmx_spec_ctrl_restore_host(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx,
>> * For legacy IBRS, the IBRS bit always needs to be written after
>> * transitioning from a less privileged predictor mode, regardless of
>> * whether the guest/host values differ.
>> + *
>> + * For eIBRS affected by Post Barrier RSB Predictions a serialising
>> + * instruction (wrmsr) must be executed to ensure a call instruction has
>> + * retired before the prediction of a following unbalanced ret.
>> */
>> if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_KERNEL_IBRS) ||
>> + cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_RSB_VMEXIT_LITE) ||
>> vmx->spec_ctrl != hostval)
>> native_wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL, hostval);
>
> Better, I think, would be to leave the condition alone and put an
> LFENCE on the 'else' path:
>
> if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_KERNEL_IBRS) ||
> vmx->spec_ctrl != hostval)
> native_wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL, hostval);
> else
> rmb();
>
> When the guest and host have different IA32_SPEC_CTRL values, you get
> the serialization from the WRMSR. Otherwise, you get it from the
> cheaper LFENCE.
In this case systems that don't suffer from PBRSB (i.e. don've have
X86_FEATURE_RSB_VMEXIT_LITE set) would be doing a barrier for no reason. We're
just trading performance on vulnerable systems for a performance hit on systems
that aren't vulnerable.
>
> This is still more convoluted than having the mitigation in one place.
Agreed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-06 0:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-05 22:02 [PATCH] x86/speculation: Mitigate eIBRS PBRSB predictions with WRMSR Suraj Jitindar Singh
2022-10-05 22:29 ` Jim Mattson
2022-10-06 8:25 ` David Laight
2022-10-06 20:27 ` pawan.kumar.gupta
2022-10-05 23:24 ` Jim Mattson
2022-10-05 23:45 ` Pawan Gupta
2022-10-05 23:46 ` Jim Mattson
2022-10-06 0:26 ` Daniel Sneddon [this message]
2022-10-06 1:28 ` Jim Mattson
2022-10-06 8:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-10-06 2:42 ` Andrew Cooper
2022-10-07 1:44 ` pawan.kumar.gupta
2022-10-07 1:54 ` Pawan Gupta
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=684c8ef6-bf69-e31e-fb3e-d3beca52fd15@linux.intel.com \
--to=daniel.sneddon@linux.intel.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=sjitindarsingh@gmail.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=surajjs@amazon.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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